Jonathan Stokes

Effectiveness of Case Management for 'At Risk' Patients in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background An ageing population with multimorbidity is putting pressure on health systems. A popular method of managing this pressure is identification of patients in primary care ‘at-risk’ of hospitalisation, and delivering case management to improve outcomes and avoid admissions. However, the effectiveness of this model has not been subjected to rigorous quantitative synthesis. Methods and Findings We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of case management for ‘at-risk’ patients in primary care. Six bibliographic databases were searched using terms for ‘case management’, ‘primary care’, and a methodology filter (Cochrane EPOC group). Effectiveness compared to usual care was measured across a number of relevant outcomes: Health – self-assessed health status, mortality; Cost – total cost of care, healthcare utilisation (primary and non-specialist care and secondary care separately), and; Satisfaction – patient satisfaction. We conducted secondary subgroup analyses to assess whether effectiveness was moderated by the particular model of case management, context, and study design. A total of 15,327 titles and abstracts were screened, 36 unique studies were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in total cost, mortality, utilisation of primary or secondary care. A very small significant effect favouring case management was found for self-reported health status in the short-term (0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14). A small significant effect favouring case management was found for patient satisfaction in the short- (0.26, 0.16 to 0.36) and long-term (0.35, 0.04 to 0.66). Secondary subgroup analyses suggested the effectiveness of case management may be increased when delivered by a multidisciplinary team, when a social worker was involved, and when delivered in a setting rated as low in initial ‘strength’ of primary care. Conclusions This was the first meta-analytic review which examined the effects of case management on a wide range of outcomes and considered also the effects of key moderators. Current results do not support case management as an effective model, especially concerning reduction of secondary care use or total costs. We consider reasons for lack of effect and highlight key research questions for the future. Review Protocol The review protocol is available as part of the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42014010824).

Multimorbidity and Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Multimorbidity is increasingly prevalent and represents a major challenge in primary care. Patients with multimorbidity are potentially more likely to experience safety incidents due to the complexity of their needs and frequency of their interactions with health services. However, rigorous syntheses of the link between patient safety incidents and multimorbidity are not available. This review examined the relationship between multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care. Methods We followed our published protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007434). Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched up to May 2015. Study design and quality were assessed. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the associations between multimorbidity and two categories of patient safety outcomes: ‘active patient safety incidents’ (such as adverse drug events and medical complications) and ‘precursors of safety incidents’ (such as prescription errors, medication non-adherence, poor quality of care and diagnostic errors). Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken. Results Eighty six relevant comparisons from 75 studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that physical-mental multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for ‘active patient safety incidents’ (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.38) and ‘precursors of safety incidents’ (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.03). Physical multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for active safety incidents (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.45 to 1.80) but was not associated with precursors of safety incidents (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.13). Statistical heterogeneity was high and the methodological quality of the studies was generally low. Conclusions The association between multimorbidity and patient safety is complex, and varies by type of multimorbidity and type of safety incident. Our analyses suggest that multimorbidity involving mental health may be a key driver of safety incidents, which has important implication for the design and targeting of interventions to improve safety. High quality studies examining the mechanisms of patient safety incidents in patients with multimorbidity are needed, with the goal of promoting effective service delivery and ameliorating threats to safety in this group of patients.

Associations between Extending Access to Primary Care and Emergency Department Visits: A Difference-In-Differences Analysis

Background Health services across the world increasingly face pressures on the use of expensive hospital services. Better organisation and delivery of primary care has the potential to manage demand and reduce costs for hospital services, but routine primary care services are not open during evenings and weekends. Extended access (evening and weekend opening) is hypothesized to reduce pressure on hospital services from emergency department visits. However, the existing evidence-base is weak, largely focused on emergency out-of-hours services, and analysed using a before-and after-methodology without effective comparators. Methods and Findings Throughout 2014, 56 primary care practices (346,024 patients) in Greater Manchester, England, offered 7-day extended access, compared with 469 primary care practices (2,596,330 patients) providing routine access. Extended access included evening and weekend opening and served both urgent and routine appointments. To assess the effects of extended primary care access on hospital services, we apply a difference-in-differences analysis using hospital administrative data from 2011 to 2014. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match practices without extended access to practices with extended access. Differences in the change in “minor” patient-initiated emergency department visits per 1,000 population were compared between practices with and without extended access. Populations registered to primary care practices with extended access demonstrated a 26.4% relative reduction (compared to practices without extended access) in patient-initiated emergency department visits for “minor” problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to -5,866), and a 26.6% (95% CI -39.2% to -14.1%) relative reduction in costs of patient-initiated visits to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: -£767,976, -£1,130,767 to -£405,184). There was an insignificant relative reduction of 3.1% in total emergency department visits (95% CI -6.4% to 0.2%). Our results were robust to several sensitivity checks. A lack of detailed cost reporting of the running costs of extended access and an inability to capture health outcomes and other health service impacts constrain the study from assessing the full cost-effectiveness of extended access to primary care. Conclusions The study found that extending access was associated with a reduction in emergency department visits in the first 12 months. The results of the research have already informed the decision by National Health Service England to extend primary care access across Greater Manchester from 2016. However, further evidence is needed to understand whether extending primary care access is cost-effective and sustainable.

Integrated care: theory to practice

‘Integrated care’ is pitched as the solution to current health system challenges. In the literature, what integrated care actually involves is complex and contested. Multi-disciplinary team case management is frequently the primary focus of integrated care when implemented internationally. We examine the practical application of integrated care in the NHS in England to exemplify the prevalence of the case management focus. We look at the evidence for effectiveness of multi-disciplinary team case management, for the focus on high-risk groups and for integrated care more generally. We suggest realistic expectations of what integration of care alone can achieve and additional research questions.

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management: difference-in-differences analysis.

Objectives To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). Design Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individual-level results by risk score. Setting Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UKs National Health Service (NHS). Participants At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. Intervention Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. Direct and indirect outcome measures Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). Results At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient non-elective admissions (−0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; −1.17 to −0.09. ES: −0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. Conclusions The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

Shifting chronic disease management from hospitals to primary care in Estonian health system: analysis of national panel data.

Background To examine changes in under–5 mortality, coverage of child survival interventions and nutritional status of children in Ethiopia between 2000 and 2011. Using the Lives Saved Tool, the impact of changes in coverage of child survival interventions on under–5 lives saved was estimated. Methods Estimates of child mortality were generated using three Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys undertaken between 2000 and 2011. Coverage indicators for high impact child health interventions were calculated and the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) was used to estimate child lives saved in 2011. Results The mortality rate in children younger than 5 years decreased rapidly from 218 child deaths per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval 183 to 252) in the period 1987–1991 to 88 child deaths per 1000 live births in the period 2007–2011 (78 to 98). The prevalence of moderate or severe stunting in children aged 6–35 months also declined significantly. Improvements in the coverage of interventions relevant to child survival in rural areas of Ethiopia between 2000 and 2011 were found for tetanus toxoid, DPT3 and measles vaccination, oral rehydration solution (ORS) and care–seeking for suspected pneumonia. The LiST analysis estimates that there were 60 700 child deaths averted in 2011, primarily attributable to decreases in wasting rates (18%), stunting rates (13%) and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions (13%). Conclusions Improvements in the nutritional status of children and increases in coverage of high impact interventions most notably WASH and ORS have contributed to the decline in under–5 mortality in Ethiopia. These proximal determinants however do not fully explain the mortality reduction which is plausibly also due to the synergistic effect of major child health and nutrition policies and delivery strategies.BACKGROUND Following independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia introduced a national insurance system, consolidated the number of health care providers, and introduced family medicine centred primary health care (PHC) to strengthen the health system. METHODS Using routinely collected health billing records for 2005-2012, we examine health system utilisation for seven ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], depression, Type 2 diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease [IHD]), and by patient characteristics (gender, age, and number of co-morbidities). The data set contained 552,822 individuals. We use patient level data to test the significance of trends, and employ multivariate regression analysis to evaluate the probability of inpatient admission while controlling for patient characteristics, health system supply-side variables, and PHC use. FINDINGS Over the study period, utilisation of PHC increased, whilst inpatient admissions fell. Service mix in PHC changed with increases in phone, email, nurse, and follow-up (vs initial) consultations. Healthcare utilisation for diabetes, depression, IHD and hypertension shifted to PHC, whilst for COPD, heart failure and asthma utilisation in outpatient and inpatient settings increased. Multivariate regression indicates higher probability of inpatient admission for males, older patient and especially those with multimorbidity, but protective effect for PHC, with significantly lower hospital admission for those utilising PHC services. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest health system reforms in Estonia have influenced the shift of ACSCs from secondary to primary care, with PHC having a protective effect in reducing hospital admissions.

The Foundations Framework for Developing and Reporting New Models of Care for Multimorbidity

PURPOSE Multimorbidity challenges health systems globally. New models of care are urgently needed to better manage patients with multimorbidity; however, there is no agreed framework for designing and reporting models of care for multimorbidity and their evaluation. METHODS Based on findings from a literature search to identify models of care for multimorbidity, we developed a framework to describe these models. We illustrate the application of the framework by identifying the focus and gaps in current models of care, and by describing the evolution of models over time. RESULTS Our framework describes each model in terms of its theoretical basis and target population (the foundations of the model) and of the elements of care implemented to deliver the model. We categorized elements of care into 3 types: (1) clinical focus, (2) organization of care, (3) support for model delivery. Application of the framework identified a limited use of theory in model design and a strong focus on some patient groups (elderly, high users) more than others (younger patients, deprived populations). We found changes in elements with time, with a decrease in models implementing home care and an increase in models offering extended appointments. CONCLUSIONS By encouragin greater clarity about the underpinning theory and target population, and by categorizing the wide range of potentially important elements of an intervention to improve care for patients with multimorbidity, the framework may be useful in designing and reporting models of care and help advance the currently limited evidence base.

CCG implementation of integrated care in the NHS

BackgroundDemographic changes, ageing populations and increasing numbers of patients with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) means health systems must change organisation and delivery to match patient need. Health systems globally are therefore looking to implement ?integrated care? as a means to achieve better health system outcomes (health gain, cost-effectiveness, and user satisfaction [1]). The NHS is no exception.The 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which also created the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), mandated that these new clinically-led organisations act to support integration of care [2]. However, there is little known about the implementation of integrated care and how CCGs have utilised the flexibility that they have been provided.This project, therefore, examines a random sample of CCGs and compares the models of integrated care in practice to date.Materials and methodsAll of the publically available literature from a random sample of 10% (n=21) of the 211 CCGs was examined to determine the models of ?integrated care? being implemented.The model in each CCG was categorised with the aid of an extant health systems framework [1], and models compared across the sample. Results were discussed in terms of innovation displayed by the new CCGs.ResultsAlthough the source of information (CCG reports) limited the detail of what could be extracted, there was a clear dominance (n=17/21, 81%) of a single particular model of integrated care present as the primary practice in the NHS. This model can be described as multi-disciplinary case management of high-risk patients, and tends to focus on reducing these patients? use of acute, secondary care services.ConclusionsAt the CCG-level, there appears to be a focus on integrating care via ?service delivery? interventions, focussed on a small minority of patients determined to be at most risk. The evidence base for this particular intervention is limited at present [3], potentially requiring more justification in terms of health system outcomes.This clear dominance of a single model also shows limited evidence of innovation, given the potential for flexibility at the CCG-level.ReferencesAtun R, Aydin S, Chakraborty S, S�mer S, Aran M, G�rol I, Nazlioilu S, �zg�lc� E, Aydoian �, Ayar B, et al.: Universal health coverage in Turkey: enhancement of equity.Lancet 2013, 382:65-99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURLDepartment of Health: Health and Social Care Act 2012.2012.Ross S, Curry N, Goodwin N: Case Management: What it is and how it can best be implemented.King?s Fund; 2011. OpenURL

Effect of health system reforms in Turkey on user satisfaction.

In 2003, the Turkish government introduced major health system changes, the Health Transformation Programme (HTP), to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). The HTP leveraged changes in all parts of the health system, organization, financing, resource management and service delivery, with a new family medicine model introducing primary care at the heart of the system. This article examines the effect of these health system changes on user satisfaction, a key goal of a responsive health system. Utilizing the results of a nationally representative yearly survey introduced at the baseline of the health system transformation, multivariate logistic regression analysis is used to examine the yearly effect on satisfaction with health services. During the 9–year period analyzed (2004–2012), there was a nearly 20% rise in reported health service use, coinciding with increased access, measured by insurance coverage. Controlling for factors known to contribute to user satisfaction in the literature, there is a significant (P < 0.001) increase in user satisfaction with health services in almost every year (bar 2006) from the baseline measure, with the odds of being satisfied with health services in 2012, 2.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.01–3.24) times that in 2004, having peaked at 3.58 (95% CI 2.82–4.55) times the baseline odds in 2011. Additionally, those who used public primary care services were slightly, but significantly (P < 0.05) more satisfied than those who used any other services, and increasingly patients are choosing primary care services rather than secondary care services as the provider of first contact. A number of quality indicators can probably help account for the increased satisfaction with public primary care services, and the increase in seeking first–contact with these providers. The implementation of primary care focused UHC as part of the HTP has improved user satisfaction in Turkey.

Targeting the ‘right’ patients for integrated care: stakeholder perspectives from a qualitative study:

Objective To explore the perceptions of relevant stakeholders in terms of targeting the ‘right’ patients for integrated care. Methods Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews with relevant stakeholders (including programme managers, programme initiators, a representative of the payers, medical and social care professionals and allied health services staff) from two integrated care sites in England. A thematic analysis was conducted of cross-cutting themes. Results Both sites focused on individualized management of ‘high-risk’ patients through multidisciplinary team case management. The data-driven approach to targeting patients, recommended in the policy literature, did not align with stakeholders’ experience of selecting patients in practice. The ‘right’ patients were at lower risk than those recommended by policy, and their complexities were identified as comprising mostly social rather than medical issues. Conclusions These findings raise timely questions about the individualized management approach. They potentially explain why management of high-risk patients has not been found to be effective using quantitative measures, undermining the assumption that this approach will lead to cost savings. There is a need to expand beyond an individually targeted approach to incorporate prevention and to address social issues.