Dataset Information

Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention.

Methods

We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958.

Findings

Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention.

Interpretation

To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Salisbury C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6041724 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:An increasing number of people are living with multimorbidity. The evidence base for how best to manage these patients is weak. Current clinical guidelines generally focus on single conditions, which may not reflect the needs of patients with multimorbidity. The aim of the 3D study is to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice.This is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. 32 general practices around Bristol, Greater Manchester and Glasgow will be randomised to receive either the '3D intervention' or usual care. 3D is a complex intervention including components affecting practice organisation, the conduct of patient reviews, integration with secondary care and measures to promote change in practice organisation. Changes include improving continuity of care and replacing reviews of each disease with patient-centred reviews with a focus on patients' quality of life, mental health and polypharmacy. We aim to recruit 1383 patients who have 3 or more chronic conditions. This provides 90% power at 5% significance level to detect an effect size of 0.27 SDs in the primary outcome, which is health-related quality of life at 15 months using the EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcome measures assess patient centredness, illness burden and treatment burden. The primary analysis will be a multilevel regression model adjusted for baseline, stratification/minimisation, clustering and important co-variables. Nested process evaluation will assess implementation, mechanisms of effectiveness and interaction of the intervention with local context. Economic analysis of cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness will be based on quality-adjusted life years.This study has approval from South-West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via final report, peer-reviewed publications and guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers.ISRCTN06180958; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionGout is increasing despite effective therapies to lower serum urate concentrations to 0.36 mmol/L or less, which, if sustained, significantly reduces acute attacks of gout. Adherence to urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is poor, with rates of less than 50% 1 year after initiation of ULT. Attempts to increase adherence in gout patients have been disappointing. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of use of a personal, self-management, 'smartphone' application (app) to achieve target serum urate concentrations in people with gout. We hypothesise that personalised feedback of serum urate concentrations will improve adherence to ULT.Methods and analysisSetting and designPrimary care. A prospective, cluster randomised (by general practitioner (GP) practices), controlled trial.ParticipantsGP practices will be randomised to either intervention or control clusters with their patients allocated to the same cluster.InterventionThe intervention group will have access to the Healthy.me app tailored for the self-management of gout. The control group patients will have access to the same app modified to remove all functions except the Gout Attack Diary.Primary and secondary outcomesThe proportion of patients whose serum urate concentrations are less than or equal to 0.36 mmol/L after 6 months. Secondary outcomes will be proportions of patients achieving target urate concentrations at 12 months, ULT adherence rates, serum urate concentrations at 6 and 12 months, rates of attacks of gout, quality of life estimations and process and economic evaluations. The study is designed to detect a ≥30% improvement in the intervention group above the expected 50% achievement of target serum urate at 6 months in the control group: power 0.80, significance level 0.05, assumed 'dropout' rate 20%.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000455460.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of heart failure (HF) is challenging because of the complexities in recommended therapies. Integrated disease management (IDM) is an effective model, promoting guideline-directed care, but the impact of IDM in the community setting requires further evaluation.MethodsA retrospective evaluation of community-based IDM. Patient characteristics were described, and outcomes using a pre- and post-intervention design were HF-related health-service use, quality of life, and concordance with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).Results715 patients were treated in the program (2016 to 2023), 219 in a community specialist-care clinic, and 496 in 25 primary-care clinics. The overall cohort was predominantly male (60%), with a mean age of 73.5 years (± 10.7), and 60% with HF with reduced ejection fraction. In patients with ≥ 6 months of follow-up (n = 267), pre vs post annualized rates of HF-related acute health-service use decreased from 36.3 to 8.5 hospitalizations per 100 patients per year, P < 0.0001, from 31.8 to 13.1 emergency department visits per 100 patients per year, P < 0.0001, and from 152.8 to 110.0 urgent physician visits per 100 patients per year, P = 0.0001. The level of concordance with GDMT improved; the number of patients receiving triple therapy and quadruple therapy increased by 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%,17.8%) and 19.6% (95% CI, 12.0%, 27.3%), respectively. Within these groups, optimal dosing was achieved in 42.5% (95% CI, 32.0%, 53.6%) and 35.0% (95% CI, 23.1%, 48.4%), respectively. In patients with at least one follow-up visit (n = 286), > 50% experienced a clinically relevant improvement in their quality of life.ConclusionsA community-based IDM program for HF, may reduce HF-related acute health-service use, improve quality of life and level of concordance with GDMT. These encouraging preliminary outcomes from a real-world program evaluation require confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent evidence has highlighted the high prevalence and impact of multimorbidity, but the evidence base for improving management is limited. We have tested a new complex intervention for multimorbidity (the 3D model). The paper describes the baseline characteristics of practices and patients in order to establish the external validity of trial participants. It also explores current 'usual primary care' for multimorbidity, against which the 3D intervention was tested.DesignAnalysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff.SettingPrimary care in the UK.ParticipantsPatients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff.Primary and secondary outcome measuresUsing surveys and routinely available data, we compared the characteristics of participating and non-participating practices and participating and non-participating eligible patients.Baseline questionnaire data from patient participants was used to examine participant illness burden, treatment burden and perceptions of receiving patient-centred care. We obtained data about usual care preintervention from practice staff using questionnaires and a structured pro forma.ResultsParticipating practices were slightly larger, in less deprived areas, and with slightly higher scores for patient satisfaction compared with non-participating practices. Patients with dementia or learning difficulties were likely to be excluded by their general practitioners, but comparison of participants with non-participants identified only minor differences in characteristics, suggesting that the sample was otherwise representative. Patients reported substantial illness burden, and an important minority reported high treatment burden. Although patients reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with care, many reported not having received potentially important components of care.ConclusionThis trial achieved good levels of external validity. Although patients were generally satisfied with primary care services, there was significant room for improvement in important aspects of care for multimorbidity that are targeted by the 3D intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN06180958; Post-results.

Project description:Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (?60 years, ?3?chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ?5?long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9?months' follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0-5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Home care clients are increasingly medically complex, have limited access to effective chronic disease management and have very high emergency department (ED) visitation rates. There is a need for more appropriate and targeted supportive chronic disease management for home care clients. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and preliminary cost effectiveness of a targeted, person-centred cardiorespiratory management model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Detection of Indicators and Vulnerabilities of Emergency Room Trips (DIVERT) - Collaboration Action Research and Evaluation (CARE) trial is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, multicentre superiority trial of a flexible multicomponent cardiorespiratory management model based on the best practice guidelines. The trial will be conducted in partnership with three regional, public-sector, home care providers across Canada. The primary outcome of the trial is the difference in time to first unplanned ED visit (hazard rate) within 6?months. Additional secondary outcomes are to identify changes in patient activation, changes in cardiorespiratory symptom frequencies and cost effectiveness over 6?months. We will also investigate the difference in the number of unplanned ED visits, number of inpatient hospitalisations and changes in health-related quality of life. Multilevel proportional hazard and generalised linear models will be used to test the primary and secondary hypotheses. Sample size simulations indicate that enrolling 1100 home care clients across 36 clusters (home care caseloads) will yield a power of 81% given an HR of 0.75. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board as well as each participating site's ethics board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and for presentation at relevant conferences. Home care service partners will also be informed of the study's results. The results will be used to inform future support strategies for older adults receiving home care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03012256.

Project description:BackgroundManagement of patients with polypharmacy is challenging, and evidence for beneficial effects of deprescribing interventions is mixed. This study aimed to investigate whether a patient-centred deprescribing intervention of PCPs results in a reduction of polypharmacy, without increasing the number of adverse disease events and reducing the quality of life, among their older multimorbid patients.MethodsThis is a cluster-randomised clinical study among 46 primary care physicians (PCPs) with a 12 months follow-up. We randomised PCPs into an intervention and a control group. They recruited 128 and 206 patients if ≥60 years and taking ≥five drugs for ≥6 months. The intervention consisted of a 2-h training of PCPs, encouraging the use of a validated deprescribing-algorithm including shared-decision-making, in comparison to usual care. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the number of drugs per patient (dpp) between baseline and after 12 months. Additional outcomes focused on patient safety and quality of life (QoL) measures.ResultsThree hundred thirty-four patients, mean [SD] age of 76.2 [8.5] years participated. The mean difference in the number of dpp between baseline and after 12 months was 0.379 in the intervention group (8.02 and 7.64; p = 0.059) and 0.374 in the control group (8.05 and 7.68; p = 0.065). The between-group comparison showed no significant difference at all time points, except for immediately after the intervention (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences concerning patient safety nor QoL measures.ConclusionOur straight-forward and patient-centred deprescribing procedure is effective immediately after the intervention, but not after 6 and 12 months. Further research needs to determine the optimal interval of repeated deprescribing interventions for a sustainable effect on polypharmacy at mid- and long-term. Integrating SDM in the deprescribing process is a key factor for success.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, prospectively registered ISRCTN16560559 Date assigned 31/10/2014. The Prevention of Polypharmacy in Primary Care Patients Trial (4P-RCT).