Can care management enhance integration of primary and specialty care?

The case for chronic disease management for addiction

Chronic disease (care) management (CDM) is a patient-centered model of care that involves longitudinal care delivery; integrated, and coordinated primary medical and specialty care; patient and clinician education; explicit evidence-based care plans; and expert care availability. The model, incorporating mental health and specialty addiction care, holds promise for improving care for patients with substance dependence who often receive no care or fragmented ineffective care. We describe a CDM model for substance dependence and discuss a conceptual framework, the extensive current evidence for component elements, and a promising strategy to reorganize primary and specialty health care to facilitate access for people with substance dependence. The CDM model goes beyond integrated case management by a professional, colocation of services, and integrated medical and addiction care-elements that individually can improve outcomes. Supporting evidence is presented that: 1) substance dependence is a chronic disease requiring longitudinal care, although most patients with addictions receive no treatment (eg, detoxification only) or short-term interventions, and 2) for other chronic diseases requiring longitudinal care (eg, diabetes, congestive heart failure), CDM has been proven effective.

How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts

BACKGROUND

The concept of 'continuity of care' has changed over time and seems to be entangled with other care concepts, for example coordination and integration of care. These concepts may overlap, and differences between them often remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

In order to clarify the confusion of tongues and to identify core values of these patient-centred concepts, we provide a historical overview of continuity of care and four related concepts: coordination of care, integration of care, patient-centred care and case management.

METHODS

We identified and reviewed articles including a definition of one of these concepts by performing an extensive literature search in PubMed. In addition, we checked the definition of these concepts in the Oxford English Dictionary.

RESULTS

Definitions of continuity, coordination, integration, patient-centred care and case management vary over time. These concepts show both great entanglement and also demonstrate differences. Three major common themes could be identified within these concepts: personal relationship between patient and care provider, communication between providers and cooperation between providers. Most definitions of the concepts are formulated from the patient's perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified themes appear to be core elements of care to patients. Thus, it may be valuable to develop an instrument to measure these three common themes universally. In the patient-centred medical home, such an instrument might turn out to be an important quality measure, which will enable researchers and policy makers to compare care settings and practices and to evaluate new care interventions from the patient perspective.

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression.

METHODS

We performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments for depression. We conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 7576 patients met our inclusion criteria. We found that the use of screening or case-finding instruments were associated with a modest increase in the recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.59). Questionnaires, when administered to all patients and the results given to clinicians irrespective of baseline score, had no impact on recognition (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24). Screening or case finding increased the use of any intervention by a relative risk of 1.30 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). There was no evidence of influence on the prescription of antidepressant medications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.66). Seven studies provided data on outcomes of depression, and no evidence of an effect was found (standardized mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20).

INTERPRETATION

If used alone, case-finding or screening questionnaires for depression appear to have little or no impact on the detection and management of depression by clinicians. Recommendations to adopt screening strategies using standardized questionnaires without organizational enhancements are not justified.

Cluster randomized trials produced similar results to individually randomized trials in a meta-analysis of enhanced care for depression

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether cluster randomized trials (1) produce baseline imbalances between intervention and control conditions; (2) give results that are substantially different individually randomized trials; and (3) give different results when adjusted for unit of analysis error.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used 14 cluster randomized trials and 20 individualized trials of the same intervention (collaborative care for depression). We conducted a random effects meta-analysis to examine imbalance in baseline depression scores. We used meta-regression to test for differential effect size and heterogeneity between clustered and individualized studies. Unit of analysis error was corrected using a range of plausible published intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

There were no baseline imbalances in either cluster randomized (P=0.837) or individually randomized (P=0.737) studies. Cluster randomized studies gave almost identical estimates of effect size when compared to individually randomized studies (standardized mean difference, SMDcluster=0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17, 0.33; SMDindividual=0.24; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.36). Adjustment for clustering had minimal effect on clinical and statistical significance (pooled SMDICC 0.02=0.249 [95% CI: 0.174, 0.325] to SMDICC 0.05=0.258 [95% CI: 0.172, 0.345]).

CONCLUSION

The additional effort and expense involved in cluster randomized trials needs to be justified when individualized studies might produce robust and believable results.

Randomized trials with concurrent economic evaluations reported unrepresentatively large clinical effect sizes

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether randomized economic evaluations report clinical effectiveness estimates that are unrepresentative of the totality of the research literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

From 36 studies (12,294 patients) of enhanced care for depression, we compared pooled clinical effect sizes in studies with a concurrent economic evaluation to those in studies that did not publish a concurrent economic evaluation, using metaregression.

RESULTS

The pooled clinical effect size of studies publishing an economic evaluation was almost twice as large as that of studies that did not publish an economic evaluation (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] in randomized controlled trials [RCTs] with an economic evaluation=0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.23-0.46; pooled SMD in RCTs without an economic evaluation=0.17; 95% CI=0.10-0.25). This difference was statistically significant (SMD between group difference=-0.17; 95% CI: -0.31 to -0.02; P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Publication of an economic evaluation of enhanced care for depression was associated with a larger clinical effect size. Cost-effectiveness estimates should be interpreted with caution, and the representativeness of the clinical data on which they are based should always be considered. Further research is needed to explore this observed association and potential bias in other areas.

Funding mechanisms for depression care management: opportunities and challenges

OBJECTIVE

Inconsistent third-party reimbursement for depression care management is a significant economic barrier to the utilization and sustainability of the chronic illness care model in primary care practice settings. We review common mechanisms used to procure payment for depression care management services, discuss obstacles encountered and suggest future directions.

METHOD

We describe several extant models for funding depression care management services in use at the demonstration sites of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded "Depression in Primary Care" project and similar programs. We derived this information from ongoing discussions with the sites' project directors and through an extensive electronic literature search on "care management, funding mechanisms and depression."

RESULTS

Funding mechanisms include (a) practice-based care management on a fee-for-service basis, (b) practice-based care management under contract to health plans, (c) global capitation, (d) flexible infrastructure support for chronic care management, (e) health-plan-based care management, (f) third-party-based care management under contract to health plans and (g) hybrid models.

CONCLUSIONS

While substantial obstacles remain in the way of fully implementing these depression care management funding mechanisms (e.g., variations in care managers' credentials and work locations and third-party payer concerns about overutilization and transaction costs), several recent policy advances provide some optimism for the potential adoption of financial mechanisms to support and disseminate these evidence-based practices.

Evaluation of “Depression in Primary Care” Innovations

Key stakeholders and executive decision makers in health care system require clear and convincing data of the value of chronic illness care models for the primary care treatment of depression. Well-conceived and conducted evaluations provide this necessary information. This case study describes the experience of a large, nonprofit health care system's experience with implementing and evaluating a quality improvement program for integrating depression management into primary care. The commentary that follows discusses specific evaluation questions that are relevant to each of the stakeholder groups involved in deciding whether or not to continue supporting such programs.