Care Redesign

Flipping the Script — A Patient-Centered Approach to Fixing Acute Care

Article · September 19, 2016

When confronted with an unanticipated acute need for health care, patients must weigh multiple complex considerations, including costs, time constraints imposed by family responsibilities and job obligations, and uncertainty about whether their symptoms represent a minor illness or a more serious condition that could worsen if diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Patients must also consider a range of potential local care options, each with a different degree of accessibility and different costs. The relative importance of these factors will vary from person to person and according to the perceived acuteness and seriousness of the health condition. But ultimately, patients seek what acute care providers offer: diagnosis, treatment, alleviation of symptoms, and reassurance.

Acute care addresses a broad range of patient concerns and medical conditions, yet it lacks a consistent and well-accepted definition. One recent conceptual model has sought to address this gap.1 Sometimes described as first-contact care, acute care accounts for about one third of all outpatient health services delivered in the United States.2 It addresses problems ranging from self-limited symptoms and minor injuries to major trauma, severe exacerbations of chronic disease, and life-threatening illnesses. Providers of such care must respond to needs of both otherwise healthy and chronically ill people of all ages and from all demographic groups.

The key common feature of these diverse conditions is their apparent time sensitivity — the patient identifies an acute need for health care. Because such a need can occur at any hour of the day on any day of the year, demand for acute care services is often unpredictable, necessitating health care organizations’ ongoing investment in fixed facility costs, after-hours staffing, and standby capacity. Unfortunately, the health system’s responsiveness when providing acute care frequently falls short of patients’ expectations and needs.

The system that constitutes the U.S. response to acute health care needs is highly fragmented, with inconsistent quality and availability that can result in substantial delays in care. It consists of a patchwork of primary, specialty, and emergency care delivered in diverse settings, including physicians’ offices, community health centers, freestanding urgent or emergency care centers, retail clinics, and hospital emergency departments, as well as telehealth approaches. Many of these organizations cannot share records, communicate effectively, or coordinate care with one another.

Moreover, with little price transparency and sparse guidance for making informed decisions about when and where to seek acute care, patients facing a health crisis are often constrained by geography, typically have little opportunity to shop on the basis of price or quality, and therefore have limited understanding of their choices and the consequences of their decisions. Too often, the acute care system suffers from a fundamental problem: a model of care that adopts the perspective of payers and providers rather than that of patients. We believe that efforts to improve care for acute health needs should begin by placing patients at the center of the system. Four strategies premised on patients’ perspectives can promote the development of a more responsive, efficient, and value-driven acute care system.

The first strategy is to maximize value by adopting a patient-centered focus on the timeliness of acute care. A recent Institute of Medicine report highlighted timeliness as one of the least-studied aims of a high-quality health system.3 Despite the lack of relevant research, we can define timeliness as system accessibility when patients are seeking care, which affects the effectiveness and efficiency of that care. Timely guidance and access to proficient care matter to patients, whether they have a minor illness or a life-threatening one, and in some circumstances may be enhanced when patients maintain continuity with a usual source of routine care. To maximize the value of acute care for patients, the health system will have to respond effectively to patients’ unanticipated and unscheduled health needs.

The primary challenge in adopting timeliness as a universal value in health care is that there’s little accountability for consistently providing timely care. Timeliness will become a priority only if clinics, hospital emergency departments, clinicians, and health systems face financial or reputational consequences for inappropriately delayed responses to patients’ acute needs.

Second, we can change organizational structures to align with a patient-centered understanding of acute care. Waits for care are common, generally believed to be inherent to health care delivery, and frequently blamed on resource limitations. Nonetheless, solutions requiring few additional resources can often be developed with improved planning and more rational scheduling, facilitated by the application of queuing theory and principles of industrial engineering. In contrast, telehealth innovations may require more investment in infrastructure and in overcoming existing reimbursement and regulatory obstacles but have the potential advantage of serving some acute care needs of patients from a distance. Solutions will also be advanced by the implementation of a more comprehensive approach to organizing care that allows for innovation and sharing of successful strategies among diverse practice settings and communities. For example, timely access to after-hours urgent care could be improved with the development of large-scale primary care cooperatives, which play a prominent role in the Netherlands.4

A third strategy is to develop measurement standards that permit accurate evaluations of the aspects of acute care performance that are meaningful to patients. Change can be accelerated by tying payment to such measures. Assessments can include process measures of acute care such as timeliness of access, diagnosis, and treatment; outcome metrics such as symptom relief and functional recovery; and costs related to episodes of care. Metric development in this area is in its infancy but could incorporate patient-reported outcomes pertaining to relief of pain and other acute symptoms or successful return to physical and social functioning.

Few, if any, clinics, hospitals, or health systems can meaningfully measure patient outcomes or calculate costs related to an episode of acute illness. This work is challenging, since acute care episodes often involve multiple sites (clinics, free-standing urgent care centers, hospital emergency departments, and skilled nursing facilities could all be involved); may cross borders between different providers, payers, and record-keeping systems; and tend to be defined by symptoms (e.g., chest pain) rather than diagnoses (e.g., acute myocardial infarction) or procedures (e.g., coronary-artery bypass grafting). Improvements in quality or costs require a clear understanding of the resources needed to deliver care during an acute illness and the outcomes that are meaningful to patients.

Fourth, we can improve the efficiency of spending by fully integrating acute care into alternative payment models. Such models, particularly comprehensive population-based payments tied to the care of a group of patients, may better align payer and provider incentives with patients’ needs by allowing acute care to be provided in varied settings while encouraging more effective use of slack in the system’s capacity in order to address those needs in a more timely fashion. For example, if less severe illnesses can be managed efficiently in a hospital emergency department, should patients delay treatment to be seen in an office setting the next day? In addition, assessments of and responses to patients’ acute health needs may improve when integrated delivery systems are responsible for the total cost of an episode of acute care and are accountable for the consequences of that care.5

Acute illness represents a substantial responsibility for the U.S. health care system, yet it has largely been overlooked in reform efforts focused on chronic disease management and hospital inpatient services. Current approaches to acute care are plagued by inefficiency, fragmentation, and redundancy. Fundamentally, to optimize our health system’s responsiveness to acute care needs, we will have to place patients at the center of the delivery system.


From the Department of Emergency Medicine (K.E.K.) and the Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine ( J.Z.A.), University of Michigan Medical School, the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy (K.E.K.), the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (K.E.K., J.Z.A.), and the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy ( J.Z.A.), University of Michigan, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health ( J.Z.A.) — all in Ann Arbor.

1. Pines JM, Lotrecchiano GR, Zocchi MS, et al. A conceptual model for episodes of acute, unscheduled care. Ann Emerg Med 2016 June 30 (Epub ahead of print).
2. Pitts SR, Carrier ER, Rich EC, Kellermann AL. Where Americans get acute care: increasingly, it’s not at their doctor’s office. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010; 29: 1620-9.
3. Kaplan G, Lopez MH, McGinnis JM, eds. Transforming health care scheduling and access: getting to now. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2015.
4. Giesen P, Smits M, Huibers L, Grol R, Wensing M. Quality of after-hours primary care in the Netherlands: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 108-13.
5. Selevan J, Kindermann D, Pines JM, Fields WW. What accountable care organizations can learn from Kaiser Permanente California’s acute care strategy. Popul Health Manag 2015; 18: 233-6.


This Perspective article originally appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine.

New call for submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Now inviting longform articles


A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From Care Redesign
odel for Complex Gynecologic Care Team at the Women's Health Institute

An Innovative Approach to Treating Complex Gynecologic Conditions

How the Women’s Health Institute at The University of Texas at Austin designed their clinic to provide comprehensive, team-based, and patient-centered care for women.

Massachusetts Community Health Centers Collaborative Teledermatology Process

A Teledermatology Initiative to Increase Access for Community Health Center Patients

A group of seven community health centers in Massachusetts collaborated to implement a teledermatology program that improved access to specialty care for patients with skin conditions and reduced overall dermatology spending.

Chang05_pullquote interpersonal medicine

Beyond Evidence-Based Medicine

Interpersonal medicine is not just about being nice — it’s about being effective.

Summary of Comprehensive Approach to Physician Behavior and Practice Change

Engaging Stakeholders to Produce Sustainable Change in Surgical Practice

How an initiative designed to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction while containing costs led to sustainable change in surgical practice and physician behavior.

Myths and Realities of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.

Primary Care and the Opioid-Overdose Crisis — Buprenorphine Myths and Realities

There is a realistic, scalable solution for reaching the millions of Americans with opioid use disorder: mobilizing the primary care physician (PCP) workforce to offer office-based addiction treatment with buprenorphine, as other countries have done.

Coffey02_pullquote family-centered care in medical and surgical procedures

What If Family-Centered Care Were Extended to Medical and Surgical Procedures?

Though the concerns are valid, early experiences suggest that family member engagement may be an effective tool for improving the value of care.

Evidence Needed for Health Systems Change to Address Social Determinants of Health and Obesity and Diet-Related Diseases in Turn

Better Clinical Care for Obesity and Diet-Related Diseases Requires a Focus on Social Determinants of Health

To more effectively treat the problems of obesity and diet-related conditions, health systems need to restructure the traditional medical model of care delivery to address the social determinants of health.

People Living with Dementia Around the World - Value-Based Chronic Illness and Dementia Care

Value-Based Care Must Strengthen Focus on Chronic Illnesses

To effectively control costs and improve value, new models must address our increasingly older patients and chronic care patients, especially those with Alzheimer’s and related dementias.

The Barriers to Excellent Care Vary Widely Across Geographic Regions - both Rural Health Care and Urban Health Care

Survey Snapshot: Rural Health Innovations Born from Challenges

According to NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members, every health system has to develop its own definition of what is meant by “rural” health.

Same-Day Breast Biopsy Workflow at Baylor College of Medicine

How Care Redesign and Process Improvement Can Reduce Patient Fear

Seeing how clinicians take care of their own when they are in frightening situations was the epiphany that led to a same-day breast biopsy program.


A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »


Quality Management

167 Articles

Coach, Don’t Just Teach

The effect of one-on-one communication coaching on clinicians’ communication skills and patients’ satisfaction.

Opioids Epidemic

23 Articles

It Takes a Health Crisis

Health crises often unmask deep, underlying disparities and disadvantage in the communities that health care…

Community Health Workers Are Critical

Community health workers really do need to be from the community.

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now