Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a people-centred care model for community-living older people versus usual care ─ A randomised controlled trial

Quality of care for chronic conditions: identifying specificities of quality aims based on scoping review and Delphi survey

There is a growing need to implement high quality chronic care to address the global burden of chronic conditions. However, to our knowledge, there have been no systematic attempts to define and specify aims for chronic care quality. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review and Delphi survey to establish and validate comprehensive specifications. The Institute of Medicine's (IOM) quality of care definition and aims were used as the foundation. We purposively selected articles from the scientific (n=48) and grey literature (n=26). We sought papers that acknowledged and unpacked the plurality of quality in chronic care and proposed or utilised frameworks, studied their implementation, or investigated at least two IOM quality care aims and implementation. Articles were analysed both deductively and inductively. The findings were validated through a Delphi survey involving 49 international chronic care experts with varied knowledge of, and experience in, low-and-middle-income countries. Considering the natural history of chronic conditions and the journey of a person with a chronic condition, we defined and identified the aims of chronic care quality. The six IOM aims apply with specific meanings. We identified a seventh aim, continuity, which relates to the issue of chronicity. The group endorsed our specifications and several participants gave contextualised interpretations and concrete examples. Chronic conditions pose specific challenges underscoring the relevance of tailoring quality of care aims. The next steps require a tailored definition and specific aims to improve, measure and assure the quality of chronic care.

The Impact of Pharmacist Medication Reviews on Geriatric Patients: A Scoping Review

Medication review is an intervention with the potential to reduce drug-related problems (DRPs) in the elderly. This study aimed to determine the effect of pharmacists' medication reviews on geriatric patients. This study accessed two online databases, MEDLINE Complete and Scopus, and examined all studies published in English between 2019 and 2023, except for reviews. The studies included (1) participants over 65 years of age and (2) medication reviews conducted by pharmacists. The titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for data extraction to determine whether the studies satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Forty-four of the initial 709 articles were included in this study. The articles included discussions on the incidence rates of DRPs and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (n=21), hospitalization (n=14), medication adherence (n=9), quality of life (QoL) (n=8), and falls (n=7). Pharmacist medication reviews were associated with a reduced incidence of DRPs and PIMs, and improved adherence to medications. Patients' overall QoL is also increasing. However, pharmacist medication reviews were not strongly associated with decreased hospitalization or falls. A pharmacist's medication review may be a feasible intervention for reducing the incidence rates of DRPs and PIMs, regardless of whether it is performed as a sole intervention or supplemented with other interventions. The intervention was also effective in increasing medication adherence and QoL.

The economic impact of a local, collaborative, stepped, and personalized care management for older people with chronic diseases: results from the randomized comparative effectiveness LoChro-trial

BACKGROUND

Within the ageing population of Western societies, an increasing number of older people have multiple chronic conditions. Because multiple health problems require the involvement of several health professionals, multimorbid older people often face a fragmented health care system. To address these challenges, in a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial, a newly developed care management approach (LoChro-Care) was compared with usual care.

METHODS

LoChro-Care consists of individualized care provided by chronic care managers with 7 to 16 contacts over 12 months. Patients aged 65 + with chronic conditions were recruited from inpatient and outpatient departments. Healthcare utilization costs are calculated by using an adapted version of the generic, self-reporting FIMA©-questionnaire with the application of standardized unit costs. Questionnaires were given at 3 time points (T0 baseline, T1 after 12 months, T2 after 18 months). The primary outcome was overall 3-month costs of healthcare utilization at T1 and T2. The data were analyzed using generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution and adjustment for age, sex, level of care as well as the 3-month costs of care at T0.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty patients were analyzed. The results showed no significant difference in the costs of healthcare utilization between participants who received LoChro-Care and those who received usual care, regardless of whether the costs were evaluated 12 (adjusted mean difference € 130.99, 95%CI €-1477.73 to €1739.71, p = 0.873) or 18 (adjusted mean difference €192.99, 95%CI €-1894.66 to €2280.65, p = 0.856) months after the start of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed no differences in costs between older people receiving LoChro-Care or usual care. Before implementing the intervention, further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to provide robust evidence on the cost effects of LoChro-Care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00013904, https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00013904 ; date of first registration 02/02/2018.

Preliminary Analysis of an Advanced Health Care Practitioner-Led Home-Visit Primary Care Program for High-Risk Patients Reduced Health Care Costs and Utilization

Background: MemorialCare Medical Group (MCMG) designed and implemented an advanced health care practitioner (AHP)-led home-visit primary care program to address the needs of a frail older adult population, who struggled with arriving for in-office care. We sought to perform a preliminary analysis to determine the program's efficacy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients enrolled in the program through tabulation of total costs of care, inpatient visits (IPVs), emergency department visits (EDVs), and 30-day readmissions (30DRs) 1-year pre-enrollment and postenrollment. Results: For the prior year and postyear windows, per-member per-month total cost of care decreased 21.4% ($5,883.44-$4,622.31), reflecting a gross savings of $2,693,480.32. Mean IPVs (2.42-1.56), EDVs (1.53-0.93), and 30DRs (0.27-0.13) were reduced. Conclusions: Initial analysis of an AHP-led in-home primary care program for frail seniors shows promise for improved outcomes with a clear decrease in the total cost of care.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacist services

BACKGROUND

Challenges to the provision of health care are occurring internationally and are expected to increase in the future, further increasing health spending. As pharmacist roles are evolving and expanding internationally to provide individualised pharmaceutical care it is important to assess the cost-effectiveness of these services.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically synthesise the international literature regarding published economic evaluations of pharmacy services to assess their cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacy services was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, IPA and online journals with search functions likely to publish economic evaluations of pharmacy services. Data were extracted regarding the interventions, the time horizon, the outcomes and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Studies' quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included in the systematic review, including 67 cost-effectiveness analyses, 6 cost-benefit analyses and 2 cost-consequence analyses. Of these, 57 were either dominant or cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of NZ$46 645 per QALY. A further 11 studies' cost-effectiveness were unable to be evaluated. Interventions considered to be most cost-effective included pharmacist medication reviews, pharmacist adherence strategies and pharmacist management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and warfarin/INR monitoring. The quality of reporting of studies differed with no studies reporting all 28 items of the CHEERS statement.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong economic evidence to support investment in extended pharmacist services, particularly those focussed on long-term chronic health conditions.

Intervention of pharmacist included in multidisciplinary team to reduce adverse drug event: a qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Preventable harm in healthcare is a growing public health challenge. In addition to the economic costs of safety failures, adverse drug events (ADE) may lead to complication or even death. Multidisciplinary care team involving a pharmacist appears to be an adequate response to prevention of adverse drug event. This qualitative systematic review aims to identify and describe multidisciplinary planned team-based care involving at least one pharmacist to limit or prevent adverse drug events in the adult patients.

METHODS

To determine the type of interprofessional collaboration to prevent adverse drug event in which a pharmacist was involved, we conducted a qualitative systematic review of the literature of randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers screened trials in three databases: Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect. Prospective studies of at least three different health professionals' interventions, one of whom was a pharmacist in the last five years were included. Two reviewers performed data extraction and quality appraisal independently. We used TIDieR checklist to appraise articles quality.

RESULTS

In total 803 citations were retrieved, 34 were analysed and 16 full-text articles were reviewed. Only 3 studies published an implementation evaluation. More than half of the interventions (62%) targeted elderly patients including 6 whom lived in nursing homes. Studies outcomes were heterogeneous, and we did not perform a statistical analysis of the impact of these interventions. Most teams are composed of a physician/pharmacist/nurse trio (94%; 100%; 88%). Half of the teams were composed of the primary care physician. Other professionals were included such as physical therapists (25%), social worker (19%), occupational therapists (12%), and community health educator (6%). Multidisciplinary medication review was the most common intervention and was generally structured in four steps: data collection and baseline assessment, appraisal report by health professionals, a multidisciplinary medication review meeting and a patient follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common multidisciplinary intervention to prevent ADE in the adult population is the multidisciplinary drug review meeting at least the physician/pharmacist/nurse trio. Interventions target mostly elderly people in nursing homes, although complex chronic patients could benefit from this type of assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42022334685.

Challenges in Multimorbidity Research: Lessons Learned From the Most Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care

Multimorbidity has received much attention and there is a growing number of original studies. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving outcomes for patient with multimorbidity in primary care. The purpose of this article is to synthesize and analyze the most recent RCTs to identify the factors that may have contribute to the success or lack of success in order to draw lessons to inform further development in intervention research. A scoping review was conducted to include current up-to-date state-of-the-art studies in primary care published from 2019. Nine articles reporting on six RCTs studies were included in the review. The findings were mixed, with primary outcomes showing no differences between intervention and control groups in four of the six but differences in secondary outcomes in all six. All studies involved family practice patients but interventions took place at different sites, and the time between the beginning of the intervention and the time of evaluation of outcomes varied across studies. Authors reported issues regarding the need for training of care teams, the roles and composition of the teams, the selection of patients and implementation barriers of the complex interventions in trying contexts with not enough time for the changes required. The randomized controlled design may not be the best evaluation design given the complexity of the interventions, and alternative designs should be considered in which qualitative components are included. Further attention to outcome measures and to equity issues is recommended.

Developing an interprofessional people-centred care model for home-living older people with multimorbidities in a primary care health centre: A community-based study

Background

The ageing population with multiple conditions and complex health needs has forced healthcare systems to rethink the optimal way of delivering services. Instead of trying to manage numerous diseases in a siloed approach, the emphasis should be on people-centred practice, in which healthcare services are tailored to people's needs and provided in partnership with them.

Objective

The aim was to develop an interprofessional people-centred care model (PCCM), including the contribution of a clinically trained pharmacist for home-living multimorbid older people in primary care.

Methods

Participatory action research method, including the active involvement of healthcare professionals, was utilised to develop the PCCM in a public health centre in Finland. The data comprised interview transcripts, workshop materials, field notes, surveys, and memos and were analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results

The PCCM was developed in iterative phases, including planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The PCCM comprised: 1) A self-management evaluation questionnaire sent before a home visit; 2) A person-centred patient interview at home with a named nurse and a pharmacist; 3) A nurse-led health review and a pharmacist-led clinical medication review; 4) An interprofessional (a GP, a pharmacist and a named nurse) case conference meeting; 5) A care plan, including health and medication plans; and 6) Health support and empowerment interventions. The PCCM shifted working practices in the health centre from parallel and consultative practice towards interprofessional people-centred practice and more holistic care. The patient's active involvement in their own care was encouraged. Healthcare professionals appreciated the advantages of the new skill-mix, including the clinically trained pharmacist. Building trust among healthcare professionals and between the professionals and the patients was essential.

Conclusion

The successfully developed PCCM improved holistic and more people-centred care in primary care. Healthcare professionals appreciated the advantages of the skill mix and found that trust was essential for implementing the PCCM.