Jonathan N Cohen1, An Nguyen2, Meena Rafiq3, Paul Taylor1. 1. Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London. 2. Health Navigator Ltd. 3. Epidemiology of Cancer and Healthcare Outcomes, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact on primary care workload of case-management interventions to reduce emergency department (ED) attendances is unknown. AIM: To examine the impact of a telephone-based case-management intervention targeting people with high ED attendance on primary care use. DESIGN AND SETTING: A single-site data extract from a larger randomised control trial, using the patient-level data from primary care electronic health records (2015-2020), was undertaken. METHOD: A total of 363 patients at high risk of ED usage were randomised to receive a 6-month case-management intervention (253 patients) or standard care (110 patients). Poisson regression models were used to calculate monthly rates of primary care use over time for the 2 years post-randomisation, comparing both arms. Usage was subclassified into face-to-face, telephone, letter, and community and secondary care referrals, stratified by patient demographics. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the mean annual rate of primary care events between the intervention and control arms (P = 0.70). Secondary care referrals saw a 26% reduction in the mean annual referral rate (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.86, P<0.001) and letters sent increased by 6% in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (IRR 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.11, P = 0.01). In the case-managed arm, in patients aged ≥80 years there was a 33% increase in primary care usage (IRR 1.33, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.40, P<0.001); with a corresponding 10% decrease in patients aged <80 years when compared with controls (IRR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.92, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: A targeted case-management intervention to reduce ED attendances did not increase overall primary care use. Redistribution of usage is seen among some patient groups, particularly older people, which may have important implications for primary healthcare planning.
BACKGROUND: The impact on primary care workload of case-management interventions to reduce emergency department (ED) attendances is unknown. AIM: To examine the impact of a telephone-based case-management intervention targeting people with high ED attendance on primary care use. DESIGN AND SETTING: A single-site data extract from a larger randomised control trial, using the patient-level data from primary care electronic health records (2015-2020), was undertaken. METHOD: A total of 363 patients at high risk of ED usage were randomised to receive a 6-month case-management intervention (253 patients) or standard care (110 patients). Poisson regression models were used to calculate monthly rates of primary care use over time for the 2 years post-randomisation, comparing both arms. Usage was subclassified into face-to-face, telephone, letter, and community and secondary care referrals, stratified by patient demographics. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the mean annual rate of primary care events between the intervention and control arms (P = 0.70). Secondary care referrals saw a 26% reduction in the mean annual referral rate (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.86, P<0.001) and letters sent increased by 6% in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (IRR 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.11, P = 0.01). In the case-managed arm, in patients aged ≥80 years there was a 33% increase in primary care usage (IRR 1.33, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.40, P<0.001); with a corresponding 10% decrease in patients aged <80 years when compared with controls (IRR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.92, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: A targeted case-management intervention to reduce ED attendances did not increase overall primary care use. Redistribution of usage is seen among some patient groups, particularly older people, which may have important implications for primary healthcare planning.
Authors: Reema Shah; Charlene Chen; Sheryl O'Rourke; Martin Lee; Sarita A Mohanty; Jennifer Abraham Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kelly A Hunt; Ellen J Weber; Jonathan A Showstack; David C Colby; Michael L Callaham Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: R Baker; M J Bankart; A Rashid; J Banerjee; S Conroy; M Habiba; R Hsu; A Wilson; S Agarwal; J Camosso-Stefinovic Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Lawrence J Cook; Stacey Knight; Edward P Junkins; N Clay Mann; J Michael Dean; Lenora M Olson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Peter Reinius; Magnus Johansson; Ann Fjellner; Joachim Werr; Gunnar Ohlén; Gustaf Edgren Journal: Eur J Emerg Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.799
Authors: Alyson Huntley; Daniel Lasserson; Lesley Wye; Richard Morris; Kath Checkland; Helen England; Chris Salisbury; Sarah Purdy Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Susan Baxter; Maxine Johnson; Duncan Chambers; Anthea Sutton; Elizabeth Goyder; Andrew Booth Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.655