The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have been working with hospital networks across the United States to improve health care through education and training on clinical best practices and leadership frameworks. Some organizations have failed to reach the high-quality standards of care expected and have adverse patient care outcomes. The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between leadership actions, funding type, and clinical care outcomes in participating Partners for Patients hospital programs in Iowa. The secondary variable data were provided from a Partnership for Patients contractor, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Organizational Assessment Tool. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between the leadership actions, funding type, and the clinical quality outcomes of catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line associated bloodstream infections, falls with injury, and venous thromboembolism. The findings demonstrated no statistically significant relationships between leadership actions, such as completing a leadership checklist, incident dashboard, and board involvement in decision making, and the specified clinical care outcomes. There was a statistically significant relationship between leadership actions of completing a root cause analysis for incidents, federal funding type, and the clinical quality outcomes of falls with injury and venous thromboembolism. The results of this study will be shared with Partnership for Patients program leadership to positively impact patient care. The results may be useful as organizations continue to implement best practices to reduce medical errors, save cost, and increase patient safety.

To address emerging challenges in empowering patients through telehealth, this dissertation has the following objectives: (a) find the key characteristics that enable patient empowerment [PE], (b) determining when will PE work as a solution, (c) find the optimal telehealth care method that enables PE, and (d) evaluate the impact of telehealth on health care outcomes (such as, patient satisfaction, patient trust with primary care providers, etc.) that ultimately enhances PE. These objectives are addressed in three studies presented here as three essays. Collectively, these essays contribute to the knowledge on PE, patient trust, and telehealth by providing insights on leveraging PE towards better health care services and delivery systems. Essay 1 aims to systemically map the concept of PE using principles of systems thinking with the Boardman soft systems methodology that enables a graphical visualization (i.e., systemigrams). Essay 2 investigates the practical and theoretical implications of connecting patients to empowerment care plans and minimizing wait times in healthcare service delivery using electronic prescriptions (s-scripts), phone calls, and video calls. In Essay 3, the mediating role of telehealth services between patient empowerment and patient satisfaction was analyzed, along with patient trust was assessed as a moderator between telehealth usability and patient satisfaction. Two hundred sixty-two responses from patients in North America with chronic illnesses were collected through an online survey questionnaire were analyzed using partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings of the research show that patients with chronic illnesses in North America feel empowered by using telehealth as they can get diagnosis of the illness even in remote areas and face no obstacle.

Il 40 per cento degli intervistati afferma che non ha trovato informazioni esaustive sui rischi e benefici dei farmaci trovati, mentre il 52 per cento afferma che le informazioni trovate hanno aiutato a seguire le indicazioni e i consigli del medico. Tra i rispondenti che si sono sottoposti a visita medica e che hanno discusso le informazioni trovate online con il proprio medico di fiducia, l'84 per cento ha ricevuto la prescrizione di farmaci. Di questi, solo il 17 per cento riporta che il farmaco prescritto era lo stesso trovato online, il 74 per cento è stato inviato da uno specialista e l'80 per cento ha ricevuto una prescrizione per test diagnostici. Più della metà dei rispondenti ha anche riportato azioni intraprese dal medico diverse dalla prescrizione del farmaco trovato online. Il 20 per cento degli intervistati afferma che le informazioni trovate sul farmaco da prescrizione in Internet hanno ridotto il suo / la sua fiducia nel medico, mentre il 41 per cento afferma che lo ha aiutato ad avere una comunicazione migliore con il proprio medico di fiducia. Nonostante le preoccupazioni sulle conseguenze negative della comunicazione di salute online, non abbiamo riscontrato differenze in termini di effetti sulla salute tra i pazienti che hanno assunto i farmaci “menzionati” online e coloro che hanno preso altri farmaci da prescrizione. / We conducted a national online survey about health care experiences associated with digital communication of prescription drugs. 46 percent of the sample (265 adults) found information about prescription drugs during their online search in the last 12 months. 40 percent of respondents agreed they didn’t find exhaustive information about risks and benefits while 52 percent agreed it helped in following their physician’s indications and advise. Among the respondents who had a physician visit during which health information found online was discussed, 84 percent received a drug prescription with only 17 percent being the same drug found on internet, 74 percent was sent to a specialist and 80 percent received a diagnostic test prescription. More than half also reported actions taken by their physician other than prescribing the drug brand found online. 20 percent respondents states that info found on the prescription drug in Internet reduced his/her trust in the physician while 41 percent states it helped in his/her communication with physician. Despite concerns about online health communication’s negative consequences, we found no differences in health effects between patients who took “advocated”/”mentioned” drugs and those who took other prescription drugs.