Comparing Dutch Case management care models for people with dementia and their caregivers: The design of the COMPAS study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dementia care in the Netherlands is shifting from fragmented, ad hoc care to more coordinated and personalised care. Case management contributes to this shift. The linkage model and a combination of intensive case management and joint agency care models were selected based on their emerging prominence in the Netherlands. It is unclear if these different forms of case management are more effective than usual care in improving or preserving the functioning and well-being at the patient and caregiver level and at the societal cost. The objective of this article is to describe the design of a study comparing these two case management care models against usual care. Clinical and cost outcomes are investigated while care processes and the facilitators and barriers for implementation of these models are considered.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>Mixed methods include a prospective, observational, controlled, cohort study among persons with dementia and their primary informal caregiver in regions of the Netherlands with and without case management including a qualitative process evaluation. Inclusion criteria for the cohort study are: community-dwelling individuals with a dementia diagnosis who are not terminally-ill or anticipate admission to a nursing home within 6 months and with an informal caregiver who speaks fluent Dutch. Person with dementia-informal caregiver dyads are followed for two years. The primary outcome measure is the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for the people with dementia and the General Health Questionnaire for their caregivers. Secondary outcomes include: quality of life and needs assessment in both persons with dementia and caregivers, activity of daily living, competence of care, and number of crises. Costs are measured from a societal perspective using cost diaries. Process indicators measure the quality of care from the participant’s perspective. The qualitative study uses purposive sampling methods to ensure a wide variation of respondents. Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders based on the theoretical model of adaptive implementation are planned.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study provides relevant insights into care processes, description of two case management models along with clinical and economic data from persons with dementia and caregivers to clarify important differences in two case management care models compared to usual care.</p

A randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness and process evaluation of the implementation of self-management for chronic gastrointestinal disorders in primary care, and linked projects on identification and risk assessment

Background: Chronic gastrointestinal disorders are major burdens in primary care. Although there is some evidence that enhancing self-management can improve outcomes, it is not known if such models of care can be implemented at scale in routine NHS settings and whether or not it is possible to develop effective risk assessment procedures to identify patients who are likely to become chronically ill.Objectives: What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to enhance self-management support for patients with chronic conditions when translated from research settings into routine care? What are the barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of an intervention to enhance self-management support among patients, clinicians and organisations? Is it possible to develop methods to identify patients at risk of long-term problems with functional gastrointestinal disorders in primary care? Data sources included professional and patient interviews, patient self-report measures and data on service utilisation.Design: A pragmatic, two-arm, practice-level cluster Phase IV randomised controlled trial evaluating outcomes and costs associated with the intervention, with associated process evaluation using interviews and other methods. Four studies around identification and risk assessment: (1) a general practitioner (GP) database study to describe how clinicians in primary care record consultations with patients who experience functional lower gastrointestinal symptoms; (2) a validation of a risk assessment tool; (3) a qualitative study to explore GPs’ views and experiences; and (4) a second GP database study to investigate patient profiles in irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and abdominal pain.Setting: Salford, UK. Participants: People with long-term conditions and professionals in primary care. Interventions: A practice-level intervention to train practitioners to assess patient self-management capabilities and involve them in a choice of self-management options.Main outcome measures: Patient self-management, care experience and quality of life, health-care utilisation and costs.Results: No statistically significant differences were found between patients attending the trained practices and those attending control practices on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The intervention had little impact on either costs or effects within the time period of the trial. In the practices, self-management tools failed to be normalised in routine care. Full assessment of the predictive tool was not possible because of variable case definitions used in practices. There was a lack of perceived clinical benefit among GPs.Limitations: The intervention was not implemented fully in practice. Assessment of the risk assessment tool faced barriers in terms of the quality of codting in GP databases and poor recruitment of patients.Conclusions: The Whole system Informing Self-management Engagement self-management (WISE) model did not add value to existing care for any of the long-term conditions studied.Future work: The active components required for effective self-management support need further study. The results highlight the challenge of delivering improvements to quality of care for long-term conditions. There is a need to develop interventions that are feasible to deliver at scale, yet demonstrably clinically effective and cost-effective. This may have implications for the piloting of interventions and linking implementation more clearly to local commissioning strategies.<br/

Optimal primary care management of clinical osteoarthritis and joint pain in older people: a mixed-methods programme of systematic reviews, observational and qualitative studies, and randomised controlled trials

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common long-term condition managed in UK general practice. However, care is suboptimal despite evidence that primary care and community-based interventions can reduce OA pain and disability. Objectives The overall aim was to improve primary care management of OA and the health of patients with OA. Four parallel linked workstreams aimed to (1) develop a health economic decision model for estimating the potential for cost-effective delivery of primary care OA interventions to improve population health, (2) develop and evaluate new health-care models for delivery of core treatments and support for self-management among primary care consulters with OA, and to investigate prioritisation and implementation of OA care among the public, patients, doctors, health-care professionals and NHS trusts, (3) determine the effectiveness of strategies to optimise specific components of core OA treatment using the example of exercise and (4) investigate the effect of interventions to tackle barriers to core OA treatment, using the example of comorbid anxiety and depression in persons with OA. Data sources The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project database, held by Keele University, was the source of data for secondary analyses in workstream 1. Methods Workstream 1 used meta-analysis and synthesis of published evidence about effectiveness of primary care treatments, combined with secondary analysis of existing longitudinal population-based cohort data, to identify predictors of poor long-term outcome (prognostic factors) and design a health economic decision model to estimate cost-effectiveness of different hypothetical strategies for implementing optimal primary care for patients with OA. Workstream 2 used mixed methods to (1) develop and test a ‘model OA consultation’ for primary care health-care professionals (qualitative interviews, consensus, training and evaluation) and (2) evaluate the combined effect of a computerised ‘pop-up’ guideline for general practitioners (GPs) in the consultation and implementing the model OA consultation on practice and patient outcomes (parallel group intervention study). Workstream 3 developed and investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) how to optimise the effect of exercise in persons with knee OA by tailoring it to the individual and improving adherence. Workstream 4 developed and investigated in a cluster RCT the extent to which screening patients for comorbid anxiety and depression can improve OA outcomes. Public and patient involvement included proposal development, project steering and analysis. An OA forum involved public, patient, health professional, social care and researcher representatives to debate the results and formulate proposals for wider implementation and dissemination. Results This programme provides evidence (1) that economic modelling can be used in OA to extrapolate findings of cost-effectiveness beyond the short-term outcomes of clinical trials, (2) about ways of implementing support for self-management and models of optimal primary care informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, including the beneficial effects of training in a model OA consultation on GP behaviour and of pop-up screens in GP consultations on the quality of prescribing, (3) against adding enhanced interventions to current effective physiotherapy-led exercise for knee OA and (4) against screening for anxiety and depression in patients with musculoskeletal pain as an addition to current best practice for OA. Conclusions Implementation of evidence-based care for patients with OA is feasible in general practice and has an immediate impact on improving the quality of care delivered to patients. However, improved levels of quality of care, changes to current best practice physiotherapy and successful introduction of psychological screening, as achieved by this programme, did not substantially reduce patients’ pain and disability. This poses important challenges for clinical practice and OA research. Limitations The key limitation in this work is the lack of improvement in patient-reported pain and disability despite clear evidence of enhanced delivery of evidence-based care. Future work recommendations (1) New thinking and research is needed into the achievable and desirable long-term goals of care for people with OA, (2) continuing investigation into the resources needed to properly implement clinical guidelines for management of OA as a long-term condition, such as regular monitoring to maintain exercise and physical activity and (3) new research to identify subgroups of patients with OA as a basis for stratified primary care including (i) those with good prognosis who can self-manage with minimal investigation or specialist treatment, (ii) those who will respond to, and benefit from, specific interventions in primary care, such as physiotherapy-led exercise, and (iii) develop research into effective identification and treatment of clinically important anxiety and depression in patients with OA and into the effects of pain management on psychological outcomes in patients with OA. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06984617, ISRCTN93634563 and ISRCTN40721988. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme; Vol. 6, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. </jats:sec