A randomized trial of primary intensive care to reduce hospital admissions in patients with high utilization of inpatient services.

William H Sledge, Karen E Brown, Jeffrey M Levine, David A Fiellin, Marek Chawarski, William D White, Patrick G O'connor
{"title":"A randomized trial of primary intensive care to reduce hospital admissions in patients with high utilization of inpatient services.","authors":"William H Sledge,&nbsp;Karen E Brown,&nbsp;Jeffrey M Levine,&nbsp;David A Fiellin,&nbsp;Marek Chawarski,&nbsp;William D White,&nbsp;Patrick G O'connor","doi":"10.1089/dis.2006.9.328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Randomized controlled trials of case management in primary care have been infrequent and contradictory. The aim of this study was to determine if a clinic-based ambulatory case management intervention, Primary Intensive Care (PIC), would reduce hospital utilization and total cost and/or improve health outcomes among primary care patients with a recent history of high use of inpatient services. Current patients with > or =2 hospital admissions per year in the 12-18 months prior to recruitment in an urban primary care clinic were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized to the PIC intervention or usual care. PIC patients underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment with the result being a team-generated plan. The PIC team nurse practitioner served as case manager for the 12 months of follow-up and provided services designed to implement the care plan for those in the experimental group. Health care use, function, and a medication adherence scale were measured at baseline and at 12 months. There were no significant differences when either comparing the number of admissions pre and post enrollment within groups or the followup results post intervention between groups. A similar result was noted for the number of emergency department visits. The number of clinic visits increased in the intervention group by 1.5 visits per year which was statistically significant when compared to the control group. Overall functional status, health outcomes, and the Mental Health Functional Status subscore did not change significantly in either group during the study. We were unable to detect a difference in hospital use or functional status, mental health function, or medication adherence among patients who require frequent hospital admissions using our intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"9 6","pages":"328-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2006.9.328","citationCount":"46","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disease Management : Dm","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2006.9.328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials of case management in primary care have been infrequent and contradictory. The aim of this study was to determine if a clinic-based ambulatory case management intervention, Primary Intensive Care (PIC), would reduce hospital utilization and total cost and/or improve health outcomes among primary care patients with a recent history of high use of inpatient services. Current patients with > or =2 hospital admissions per year in the 12-18 months prior to recruitment in an urban primary care clinic were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized to the PIC intervention or usual care. PIC patients underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment with the result being a team-generated plan. The PIC team nurse practitioner served as case manager for the 12 months of follow-up and provided services designed to implement the care plan for those in the experimental group. Health care use, function, and a medication adherence scale were measured at baseline and at 12 months. There were no significant differences when either comparing the number of admissions pre and post enrollment within groups or the followup results post intervention between groups. A similar result was noted for the number of emergency department visits. The number of clinic visits increased in the intervention group by 1.5 visits per year which was statistically significant when compared to the control group. Overall functional status, health outcomes, and the Mental Health Functional Status subscore did not change significantly in either group during the study. We were unable to detect a difference in hospital use or functional status, mental health function, or medication adherence among patients who require frequent hospital admissions using our intervention.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级重症监护的一项随机试验,以减少住院服务利用率高的患者的住院率。
初级保健病例管理的随机对照试验很少,而且相互矛盾。本研究的目的是确定以诊所为基础的门诊病例管理干预措施,初级重症监护(PIC),是否会降低医院使用率和总成本,并/或改善近期住院服务使用率高的初级保健患者的健康结果。在招募之前的12-18个月内每年有>或=2次住院的当前患者在城市初级保健诊所被纳入一项随机临床试验。患者随机分为PIC干预组和常规护理组。PIC患者接受了全面的多学科评估,结果是团队制定的计划。PIC团队执业护士在12个月的随访中担任病例管理人员,并为实验组的患者提供旨在实施护理计划的服务。在基线和12个月时测量卫生保健使用、功能和药物依从性量表。无论是比较组内入组前和入组后的入院人数,还是组间干预后的随访结果,均无显著差异。急诊次数也有类似的结果。与对照组相比,干预组的门诊就诊次数每年增加1.5次,具有统计学意义。在研究期间,两组的整体功能状态、健康结果和心理健康功能状态评分没有显著变化。使用我们的干预措施,我们无法检测到需要频繁住院的患者在医院使用或功能状态、心理健康功能或药物依从性方面的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving medication adherence with a targeted, technology-driven disease management intervention. Weight loss and maintenance outcomes using moderate and severe caloric restriction in an outpatient setting. Where we've gone wrong. Disease management programs for the underserved. Co-occurring mental illness and health care utilization and expenditures in adults with obesity and chronic physical illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1