Elenir B C Avritscher1, Ricardo A Mosquera2, Jon E Tyson2, Claudia Pedroza2, Cheryl L Samuels3, Tomika S Harris3, Ana Gomez-Rubio3, Fernando A Navarro3, Shade B Moody3, Rebecca M Beyda3. 1. Department of Pediatrics. McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX; Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX. Electronic address: elenir.b.caramel@uth.tmc.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics. McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX; Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX. 3. Department of Pediatrics. McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sustainability of the benefits relative to usual care of a medical home providing comprehensive care for high-risk children with medical complexity (≥2 hospitalizations or ≥1 pediatric intensive care unit [PICU] admission in the year before enrollment) after we made comprehensive care our standard practice and expanded the program. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted pre-post comparisons of the rate of children with serious illness (death, PICU admission, or >7-day hospitalization) and health-system costs observed after program expansion (March 2014-June 2015) to those during the clinical trial (March 2011-August 2013) for each of the trial's treatment groups (usual care, n = 96, and comprehensive care, n = 105; primary analyses), and among all children given comprehensive care (nPost-trial = 233, including trial usual care children who transitioned to comprehensive care post-trial and newly enrolled medically complex children, and nTrial = 105; secondary analyses). We also analyzed the findings for the trial patients as a 2-phase stepped-wedge study. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, rates of children with serious illness and costs were reduced or unchanged post-trial vs trial for the trial's usual care group (rate ratio [RR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20-0.64; cost ratio [CR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.28-1.68), the trial's comprehensive care group (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39-1.41; CR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and among all children given comprehensive care (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.52; CR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93). Conservative stepped-wedge analyses identified overall benefits with comprehensive care across both study periods (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.72; CR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Major benefits of comprehensive care did not diminish with post-trial program expansion.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sustainability of the benefits relative to usual care of a medical home providing comprehensive care for high-risk children with medical complexity (≥2 hospitalizations or ≥1 pediatric intensive care unit [PICU] admission in the year before enrollment) after we made comprehensive care our standard practice and expanded the program. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted pre-post comparisons of the rate of children with serious illness (death, PICU admission, or >7-day hospitalization) and health-system costs observed after program expansion (March 2014-June 2015) to those during the clinical trial (March 2011-August 2013) for each of the trial's treatment groups (usual care, n = 96, and comprehensive care, n = 105; primary analyses), and among all children given comprehensive care (nPost-trial = 233, including trial usual care children who transitioned to comprehensive care post-trial and newly enrolled medically complex children, and nTrial = 105; secondary analyses). We also analyzed the findings for the trial patients as a 2-phase stepped-wedge study. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, rates of children with serious illness and costs were reduced or unchanged post-trial vs trial for the trial's usual care group (rate ratio [RR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20-0.64; cost ratio [CR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.28-1.68), the trial's comprehensive care group (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39-1.41; CR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and among all children given comprehensive care (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.52; CR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93). Conservative stepped-wedge analyses identified overall benefits with comprehensive care across both study periods (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.72; CR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Major benefits of comprehensive care did not diminish with post-trial program expansion.
Authors: George L Jackson; Benjamin J Powers; Ranee Chatterjee; Janet Prvu Bettger; Alex R Kemper; Vic Hasselblad; Rowena J Dolor; R Julian Irvine; Brooke L Heidenfelder; Amy S Kendrick; Rebecca Gray; John W Williams Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Carissa van den Berk-Clark; Emily Doucette; Fred Rottnek; William Manard; Mayra Aragon Prada; Rachel Hughes; Tyler Lawrence; F David Schneider Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Margareth Crisóstomo Portela; Peter J Pronovost; Thomas Woodcock; Pam Carter; Mary Dixon-Woods Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Ricardo A Mosquera; Elenir B C Avritscher; Claudia Pedroza; Cynthia S Bell; Cheryl L Samuels; Tomika S Harris; Julie C Eapen; Aravind Yadav; Michelle Poe; Raymond L Parlar-Chun; Jay Berry; Jon E Tyson Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Ricardo A Mosquera; Elenir B Caramel Avritscher; Aravind Yadav; Claudia Pedroza; Cheryl L Samuels; Tomika S Harris; Cecilia Tetzlaff; Julie Eapen; Traci R Gonzales; Charles Green; Jon E Tyson Journal: J Asthma Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 2.515