Samuel T Edwards1,2,3,4, Kim Peterson5, Brian Chan6, Johanna Anderson5, Mark Helfand7,8,6,5. 1. Section of General Internal Medicine, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. samuel.edwards@va.gov. 2. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. samuel.edwards@va.gov. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. samuel.edwards@va.gov. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. samuel.edwards@va.gov. 5. Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Coordinating Center, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 7. Section of General Internal Medicine, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. 8. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs target complex patients with the goal of preventing hospitalizations, but programs vary, and their effectiveness is not clear. In this study, we systematically reviewed the impact of intensive primary care programs on all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department use. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects from inception to March 2017. Additional studies were identified from reference lists, hand searching, and consultation with content experts. We included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies of multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs targeting complex patients at high risk of hospitalization or death, with a comparison to usual primary care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (379,745 participants) were included. Three major intensive primary care program types were identified: primary care replacement (home-based; three RCTs, one observational study, N = 367,681), primary care replacement (clinic-based; three RCTs, two observational studies, N = 9561), and primary care augmentation, in which an interdisciplinary team was added to existing primary care (five RCTs, three observational studies, N = 2503). Most studies showed no impact of intensive primary care on mortality or emergency department use, and the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations varied. There were no adverse effects reported. DISCUSSION: Intensive primary care interventions demonstrated varying effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, and there was limited evidence that these interventions were associated with changes in mortality. While interventions could be grouped into categories, there was still substantial overlap between intervention approaches. Further work is needed to identify program features that may be associated with improved outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs target complex patients with the goal of preventing hospitalizations, but programs vary, and their effectiveness is not clear. In this study, we systematically reviewed the impact of intensive primary care programs on all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department use. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects from inception to March 2017. Additional studies were identified from reference lists, hand searching, and consultation with content experts. We included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies of multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs targeting complex patients at high risk of hospitalization or death, with a comparison to usual primary care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (379,745 participants) were included. Three major intensive primary care program types were identified: primary care replacement (home-based; three RCTs, one observational study, N = 367,681), primary care replacement (clinic-based; three RCTs, two observational studies, N = 9561), and primary care augmentation, in which an interdisciplinary team was added to existing primary care (five RCTs, three observational studies, N = 2503). Most studies showed no impact of intensive primary care on mortality or emergency department use, and the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations varied. There were no adverse effects reported. DISCUSSION: Intensive primary care interventions demonstrated varying effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, and there was limited evidence that these interventions were associated with changes in mortality. While interventions could be grouped into categories, there was still substantial overlap between intervention approaches. Further work is needed to identify program features that may be associated with improved outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
care management; comorbidity; home care; primary care; primary care redesign
Authors: Steven R Counsell; Christopher M Callahan; Amna B Buttar; Daniel O Clark; Kathryn I Frank Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Donna M Zulman; Christine Pal Chee; Stephen C Ezeji-Okoye; Jonathan G Shaw; Tyson H Holmes; James S Kahn; Steven M Asch Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Brian W Jack; Veerappa K Chetty; David Anthony; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Gail M Sanchez; Anna E Johnson; Shaula R Forsythe; Julie K O'Donnell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Christopher Manasseh; Stephen Martin; Larry Culpepper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kristie Y Hsu; Cindie Slightam; Jonathan G Shaw; Aaron Tierney; Debra L Hummel; Mary K Goldstein; Evelyn T Chang; Derek Boothroyd; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 5.128
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
Authors: Susan E Stockdale; Danielle E Rose; Michael McClean; Ann-Marie Rosland; Evelyn T Chang; Donna M Zulman; Gregory Stewart; Karin M Nelson Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2022 Jul-Sep 01
Authors: Brian Chan; Elizabeth Hulen; Samuel Edwards; Matthew Mitchell; Christina Nicolaidis; Somnath Saha Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Michelle S Wong; Tana M Luger; Marian L Katz; Susan E Stockdale; Nate L Ewigman; Jeffrey L Jackson; Donna M Zulman; Steven M Asch; Michael K Ong; Evelyn T Chang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leah Tuzzio; Andrew L Berry; Kathy Gleason; Jennifer Barrow; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Marlaine Figueroa Gray; Thomas Delate; Zoe Bermet; Connie S Uratsu; Richard W Grant; James D Ralston Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 3.734