A cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Population Health Management in Diabetes Care: Combining Clinical Audit, Risk Stratification, and Multidisciplinary Virtual Clinics in a Community Setting to Improve Diabetes Care in a Geographically Defined Population. An Integrated Diabetes Care Pilot in the North East Locality, Oxfordshire, UK

BACKGROUND

Disparities in diabetes care are prevalent, with significant inequalities observed in access to, and outcomes of, healthcare. A population health approach offers a solution to improve the quality of care for all with systematic ways of assessing whole population requirements and treating and monitoring sub-groups in need of additional attention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CARE PRACTICE

Collaborative working between primary, secondary and community care was introduced in seven primary care practices in one locality in England, UK, caring for 3560 patients with diabetes and sharing the same community and secondary specialist diabetes care providers. Three elements of the intervention included 1) clinical audit, 2) risk stratification, and 3) the multi-disciplinary virtual clinics in the community.

METHODS

This paper evaluates the acceptability, feasibility and short-term impact on primary care of implementing a population approach intervention using direct observations of the clinics and surveys of participating clinicians.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Eighteen virtual clinics across seven teams took place over six months between March and July 2017 with organisation, resources, policies, education and approximately 150 individuals discussed. The feedback from primary care was positive with growing knowledge and confidence managing people with complex diabetes in primary care.

CONCLUSION

Taking a population health approach helped to identify groups of people in need of additional diabetes care and deliver a collaborative health intervention across traditional organisational boundaries.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings: an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges

BACKGROUND

We recently published a systematic review of different healthcare settings (such as outpatient, community or home) for administering intravenous chemotherapy, and concluded that performing conventionally designed randomised trials was difficult. The main problems were achieving adequate trial accrual rates and recruiting a study population which adequately represented the target population of interest. These issues stemmed from the fact that potential participants may have had pre-trial perceptions about the trial settings they may be allocated; such preferences will sometimes be strong enough for patients to decline an invitation to participate in a trial. A patient preference trial design (in which patients can choose, or be randomised to, an intervention) may have obviated these recruitment issues, although none of the trials used such a design.

METHODS

In order to gain a better understanding of the broader prevalence and extent of these preference issues (and any other methodological challenges), we undertook an exploratory review of settings trials in any area of healthcare treatment research. We searched The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar and used snowballing methods to identify trials comparing different healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Trial accrual was affected by patient preferences for a setting in 15 of the 16 identified studies; birth setting trials were the most markedly affected, with between 68 % and 85 % of eligible women declining to participate specifically because of preference for a particular healthcare setting. Recruitment into substance abuse and chemotherapy setting studies was also notably affected by preferences. Only four trials used a preference design: the proportion of eligible patients choosing to participate via a preference group ranged from between 33 % and 67 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In trials of healthcare settings, accrual may be seriously affected by patient preferences. The use of trial designs which incorporate a preference component should therefore strongly be considered. When designing such trials, investigators should consider settings to be complex interventions, which are likely to have linked components which may be difficult to control for. Careful thought is also needed regarding the choice of comparator settings and the most appropriate outcome measures to be used.

Hospitalisation among patients with diabetes associated with a Diabetes Integrated Care Initiative: a mixed methods case study

Integrated care has been postulated to result in improvements to diabetes outcomes, including reduced hospitalisation. The Diabetes Integrated Care Initiative (DICI) aimed to integrate primary, secondary and community diabetes care in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland (ECF). The aims of this study were to describe changes in care and hospitalisation rates over the first 3 years of the initiative, 2009-2012. The evaluation involved a mixed-methods approach, including a before-after design with controls from adjacent geographical areas and from patients without diabetes, alongside a 30-month ethnographic study including interviews with patients and health professionals. Over the three years, admission rates among patients with diabetes in the intervention area continued to grow. In fact, the increases in admissions in ECF were 7.4% (95% CI 5.2-9.2) and 45.5% (95% CI 42.5-48.5) greater than in the neighbouring areas of Huntingdonshire and Greater Cambridge, respectively. The rates of increase in diabetic foot, non-elective or other hospital admissions were not reduced. In summary, the DICI was not associated with improved diabetes care or reduced diabetes hospitalisation over the 3 years studied, despite substantial investment. While the principle of integration remains an ideal, linking different providers in ECF, especially those that are positioned between primary and secondary care, created barriers rather than bridges to better diabetes outcomes.

Evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD): a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Configuring high quality care for the rapidly increasing number of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major challenge worldwide for both providers and commissioners. In the UK, about two thirds of people with T2D are managed entirely in primary care, with wide variation in management strategies and achievement of targets. Pay for performance, introduced in 2004, initially resulted in improvements but disparities exist in ethnic minorities and the improvements are levelling off. Community based, intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCDs) were considered one solution and are functioning across the UK. However, there is no randomised trial evidence for the effectiveness of such clinics.

Trial Design, Methods and Findings

This is a cluster-randomised trial, involving 3 primary care trusts, with 49 general practices randomised to usual care (n = 25) or intervention (ICCDs; n = 24). All eligible adult patients with T2D were invited; 1997 were recruited and 1280 followed-up after 18-months intervention. Primary outcome: achievement of all three of the NICE targets [(HbA1c≤7.0%/53 mmol/mol; Blood Pressure <140/80 mmHg; cholesterol <154 mg/dl (4 mmol/l)]. Primary outcome was achieved in 14.3% in the intervention arm vs. 9.3% in the control arm (p = 0.059 after adjustment for covariates). The odds ratio (95% CI) for achieving primary outcome in the intervention group was 1.56 (0.98, 2.49). Primary care and community clinic costs were significantly higher in the intervention group, but there were no significant differences in hospital costs or overall healthcare costs. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of +£7,778 per QALY gained, indicated ICCD was marginally more expensive at producing health gain.

Conclusions

Intermediate care clinics can contribute to improving target achievement in patients with diabetes. Further work is needed to investigate the optimal scale and organisational structure of ICCD services and whether, over time, their role may change as skill levels in primary care increase.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00945204; National Research Register (NRR) M0014178167.