CONTEXT: Although home-based health care has grown over the past decade, its effectiveness remains controversial. A prior trial of Veterans Affairs (VA) Team-Managed Home-Based Primary Care (TM/HBPC) found favorable outcomes, but the replicability of the model and generalizability of the findings are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of TM/HBPC on functional status, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), satisfaction with care, and cost of care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multisite randomized controlled trial conducted from October 1994 to September 1998 in 16 VA medical centers with HBPC programs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1966 patients with a mean age of 70 years who had 2 or more activities of daily living impairments or a terminal illness, congestive heart failure (CHF), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Intervention Home-based primary care (n=981), including a primary care manager, 24-hour contact for patients, prior approval of hospital readmissions, and HBPC team participation in discharge planning, vs customary VA and private sector care (n=985). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient functional status, patient and caregiver HR-QoL and satisfaction, caregiver burden, hospital readmissions, and costs over 12 months. RESULTS: Functional status as assessed by the Barthel Index did not differ for terminal (P=.40) or nonterminal (those with severe disability or who had CHF or COPD) (P=.17) patients by treatment group. Significant improvements were seen in terminal TM/HBPC patients in HR-QoL scales of emotional role function, social function, bodily pain, mental health, vitality, and general health. Team-Managed HBPC nonterminal patients had significant increases of 5 to 10 points in 5 of 6 satisfaction with care scales. The caregivers of terminal patients in the TM/HBPC group improved significantly in HR-QoL measures except for vitality and general health. Caregivers of nonterminal patients improved significantly in QoL measures and reported reduced caregiver burden (P=.008). Team-Managed HBPC patients with severe disability experienced a 22% relative decrease (0.7 readmissions/patient for TM/HBPC group vs 0.9 readmissions/patient for control group) in hospital readmissions (P=.03) at 6 months that was not sustained at 12 months. Total mean per person costs were 6.8% higher in the TM/HBPC group at 6 months ($19190 vs $17971) and 12.1% higher at 12 months ($31401 vs $28008). CONCLUSIONS: The TM/HBPC intervention improved most HR-QoL measures among terminally ill patients and satisfaction among non-terminally ill patients. It improved caregiver HR-QoL, satisfaction with care, and caregiver burden and reduced hospital readmissions at 6 months, but it did not substitute for other forms of care. The higher costs of TM/HBPC should be weighed against these benefits.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Although home-based health care has grown over the past decade, its effectiveness remains controversial. A prior trial of Veterans Affairs (VA) Team-Managed Home-Based Primary Care (TM/HBPC) found favorable outcomes, but the replicability of the model and generalizability of the findings are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of TM/HBPC on functional status, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), satisfaction with care, and cost of care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multisite randomized controlled trial conducted from October 1994 to September 1998 in 16 VA medical centers with HBPC programs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1966 patients with a mean age of 70 years who had 2 or more activities of daily living impairments or a terminal illness, congestive heart failure (CHF), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Intervention Home-based primary care (n=981), including a primary care manager, 24-hour contact for patients, prior approval of hospital readmissions, and HBPC team participation in discharge planning, vs customary VA and private sector care (n=985). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient functional status, patient and caregiver HR-QoL and satisfaction, caregiver burden, hospital readmissions, and costs over 12 months. RESULTS: Functional status as assessed by the Barthel Index did not differ for terminal (P=.40) or nonterminal (those with severe disability or who had CHF or COPD) (P=.17) patients by treatment group. Significant improvements were seen in terminal TM/HBPC patients in HR-QoL scales of emotional role function, social function, bodily pain, mental health, vitality, and general health. Team-Managed HBPC nonterminal patients had significant increases of 5 to 10 points in 5 of 6 satisfaction with care scales. The caregivers of terminal patients in the TM/HBPC group improved significantly in HR-QoL measures except for vitality and general health. Caregivers of nonterminal patients improved significantly in QoL measures and reported reduced caregiver burden (P=.008). Team-Managed HBPC patients with severe disability experienced a 22% relative decrease (0.7 readmissions/patient for TM/HBPC group vs 0.9 readmissions/patient for control group) in hospital readmissions (P=.03) at 6 months that was not sustained at 12 months. Total mean per person costs were 6.8% higher in the TM/HBPC group at 6 months ($19190 vs $17971) and 12.1% higher at 12 months ($31401 vs $28008). CONCLUSIONS: The TM/HBPC intervention improved most HR-QoL measures among terminally ill patients and satisfaction among non-terminally ill patients. It improved caregiver HR-QoL, satisfaction with care, and caregiver burden and reduced hospital readmissions at 6 months, but it did not substitute for other forms of care. The higher costs of TM/HBPC should be weighed against these benefits.
Authors: Hanneke W Drewes; Lotte M G Steuten; Lidwien C Lemmens; Caroline A Baan; Hendriek C Boshuizen; Arianne M J Elissen; Karin M M Lemmens; Jolanda A C Meeuwissen; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Tracy C Wharton; Joseph Nnodim; Robert Hogikyan; Lona Mody; Mary James; Marcos Montagnini; Brant E Fries Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: R Carter Clement; Michael M Kheir; Peter B Derman; David N Flynn; Rebecca M Speck; L Scott Levin; Lee A Fleisher Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Judith Fifield; Deborah Dauser Forrest; Joseph A Burleson; Melanie Martin-Peele; William Gillespie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-03-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Frank Peters-Klimm; Stephen Campbell; Katja Hermann; Cornelia U Kunz; Thomas Müller-Tasch; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: Trials Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Steven R Counsell; Christopher M Callahan; Wanzhu Tu; Timothy E Stump; Gregory W Arling Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.562