Literature DB >> 23307395

A matched-pair cluster-randomized trial of guided care for high-risk older patients.

Chad Boult1, Bruce Leff, Cynthia M Boyd, Jennifer L Wolff, Jill A Marsteller, Kevin D Frick, Stephen Wegener, Lisa Reider, Katherine Frey, Tracy M Mroz, Lya Karm, Daniel O Scharfstein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients at risk for generating high health care expenditures often receive fragmented, low-quality, inefficient health care. Guided Care is designed to provide proactive, coordinated, comprehensive care for such patients.
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that Guided Care, compared to usual care, produces better functional health and quality of care, while reducing the use of expensive health services.
DESIGN: 32-month, single-blind, matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial of Guided Care, conducted in eight community-based primary care practices. PATIENTS: The "Hierarchical Condition Category" (HCC) predictive model was used to identify high-risk older patients who were insured by fee-for-service Medicare, a Medicare Advantage plan or Tricare. Patients with HCC scores in the highest quartile (at risk for generating high health care expenditures during the coming year) were eligible to participate. INTERVENTION: A registered nurse collaborated with two to five primary care physicians in providing eight services to participants: comprehensive assessment, evidence-based care planning, proactive monitoring, care coordination, transitional care, coaching for self-management, caregiver support, and access to community-based services. MAIN MEASURES: Functional health was measured using the Short Form-36. Quality of care and health services utilization were measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and health insurance claims, respectively. KEY
RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 904 (37.8 %) gave written consent to participate; of these, 477 (52.8 %) completed the final interview, and 848 (93.8 %) provided complete claims data. In intention-to-treat analyses, Guided Care did not significantly improve participants' functional health, but it was associated with significantly higher participant ratings of the quality of care (difference = 0.27, 95 % CI = 0.08-0.45) and 29 % lower use of home care (95 % CI = 3-48 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Guided Care improves high-risk older patients' ratings of the quality of their care, and it reduces their use of home care, but it does not appear to improve their functional health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23307395      PMCID: PMC3631081          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2287-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  29 in total

1.  Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response.

Authors:  J E Ware; M Kosinski
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Medscape's response to the Institute of Medicine Report: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.

Authors:  M Leavitt
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2001-03-05

3.  The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance.

Authors:  D G Safran; M Kosinski; A R Tarlov; W H Rogers; D H Taira; N Lieberman; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The design and analysis of paired cluster randomized trials: an application of meta-analysis techniques.

Authors:  S G Thompson; S D Pyke; R J Hardy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC).

Authors:  Russell E Glasgow; Edward H Wagner; Judith Schaefer; Lisa D Mahoney; Robert J Reid; Sarah M Greene
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities.

Authors:  F Angst; A Aeschlimann; G Stucki
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2001-08

7.  Effects of Guided Care on providers' satisfaction with care: a three-year matched-pair cluster-randomized trial.

Authors:  Jill A Marsteller; Yea-Jen Hsu; Mei Wen; Jennifer Wolff; Kevin Frick; Lisa Reider; Daniel Scharfstein; Cynthia Boyd; Bruce Leff; Lindsay Schwartz; Lya Karm; Chad Boult
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 2.459

8.  Soliciting defined populations to recruit samples of high-risk older adults.

Authors:  C Boult; L Boult; L Morishita; P Pirie
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.053

9.  More training needed in chronic care: a survey of US physicians.

Authors:  Jonathan D Darer; Wenke Hwang; Hoangmai H Pham; Eric B Bass; Gerard Anderson
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.893

10.  Risk adjustment of Medicare capitation payments using the CMS-HCC model.

Authors:  Gregory C Pope; John Kautter; Randall P Ellis; Arlene S Ash; John Z Ayanian; Lisa I Lezzoni; Melvin J Ingber; Jesse M Levy; John Robst
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2004
View more
  39 in total

1.  [Patient-centered care of multimorbid patients].

Authors:  K Hager; S Nitschmann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Transforming chronic care for older adults: guided care and the elusive triple aim.

Authors:  Maija B Sanna; David B Reuben
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Achieving Value in Primary Care: The Primary Care Value Model.

Authors:  William Rollow; Peter Cucchiara
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations.

Authors:  Joanne E Butterworth; Rebecca Hays; Sinead Tj McDonagh; Suzanne H Richards; Peter Bower; John Campbell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-28

5.  Racial Differences in Chronic Conditions and Sociodemographic Characteristics Among High-Utilizing Veterans.

Authors:  Jessica Y Breland; Christine Pal Chee; Donna M Zulman
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2014-11-08

6.  Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

Authors:  Donna M Zulman; Evelyn T Chang; Ava Wong; Jean Yoon; Susan E Stockdale; Michael K Ong; Lisa V Rubenstein; Steven M Asch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Estimation of treatment effects in matched-pair cluster randomized trials by calibrating covariate imbalance between clusters.

Authors:  Zhenke Wu; Constantine E Frangakis; Thomas A Louis; Daniel O Scharfstein
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Effects of Guided Care on providers' satisfaction with care: a three-year matched-pair cluster-randomized trial.

Authors:  Jill A Marsteller; Yea-Jen Hsu; Mei Wen; Jennifer Wolff; Kevin Frick; Lisa Reider; Daniel Scharfstein; Cynthia Boyd; Bruce Leff; Lindsay Schwartz; Lya Karm; Chad Boult
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 2.459

Review 9.  Key ingredients for implementing intensive outpatient programs within patient-centered medical homes: A literature review and qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Jessica Y Breland; Steven M Asch; Cindie Slightam; Ava Wong; Donna M Zulman
Journal:  Healthc (Amst)       Date:  2015-12-29

10.  Sample size considerations for matched-pair cluster randomization design with incomplete observations of continuous outcomes.

Authors:  Xiaohan Xu; Hong Zhu; Chul Ahn
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.