Dataset Information

Processes and Outcomes of Congestive Heart Failure Care by Different Types of Primary Care Models.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Having nurse practitioners (NPs) as primary care providers for patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) is 1 way to address the growing shortage of primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS AND RESULTS:We used inverse probability of treatment weighted with propensity score to examine the processes and outcomes of care for patients under 3 care models. Approximately 72.9%, 0.8%, and 26.3% of CHF patients received care under the PCP model, the NP model, and the shared care model, respectively. Patients under the NP or shared care models were more likely than those under the PCP model to be referred to cardiologists (odds ratio?1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.32-1.37; odds ratio ?1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.30-1.35) and to get guideline-recommended medications. NPs and PCPs had similar rates of emergency room (ER) visits and Medicare spending after adjusting for processes of care. Patients under the shared care model had a higher burden of comorbidity and experienced a higher rate of ER visits and hospitalizations than those under the PCP model. CONCLUSION:The delivery of CHF care mirrors the severity of comorbidity in these patients. The high rate of hospitalization and ER visits in the shared care model underscores the need to design and implement more effective chronic disease management and integrated care programs.

SUBMITTER: Kuo YF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6535397 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Processes and Outcomes of Congestive Heart Failure Care by Different Types of Primary Care Models.

Kuo Yong-Fang YF Adhikari Deepak D Eke Chiemeziem G CG Goodwin James S JS Raji Mukaila A MA

Journal of cardiac failure 20170901 1

<h4>Background</h4>Having nurse practitioners (NPs) as primary care providers for patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) is 1 way to address the growing shortage of primary care physicians (PCPs).<h4>Methods and results</h4>We used inverse probability of treatment weighted with propensity score to examine the processes and outcomes of care for patients under 3 care models. Approximately 72.9%, 0.8%, and 26.3% of CHF patients received care under the PCP model, the NP model, and the shared c ...[more]

PMID: 28870732

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTeam care improves processes and outcomes of care, especially for patients with complex medical conditions that require coordination of care. This study aimed to compare the processes and outcomes of care provided to older patients with diabetes by primary care teams comprised of only primary care physicians (PCPs) versus team care that included nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs).MethodsWe studied 3,524 primary care practices identified via social network analysis and 306,741 patients ≥66 years old diagnosed with diabetes in or before 2015 in Medicare data. Guideline-recommended diabetes care included eye examination, hemoglobin A1c test, and nephropathy monitoring. High-risk medications were based on recommendations from the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. Preventable hospitalizations were defined as hospitalizations for a potentially preventable condition.ResultsCompared with patients in the PCP only teams, patients in the team care practices with NPs or PAs received more guideline-recommended diabetes care (annual eye exam: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00-1.08), 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03-1.13), and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15), and HbA1C test: aOR: 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04-1.18), 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.20), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.06-1.25) for PCP/NP, PCP/NP/PA, and PCP/PA teams). Patients in the PCP/NP and the PCP/PA teams had a slightly higher likelihood of being prescribed high-risk medications (aOR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00-1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02-1.11), respectively). The likelihood of preventable hospitalizations was similar among patients cared for by various types of practices.ConclusionThe team care practices with NPs or PAs were associated with better adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations for diabetes compared to PCP only practices. Both practices had similar outcomes. Further efforts are needed to explore new and cost-effective team-based care delivery models that improve process, outcomes, and continuity of care, as well as patient care experiences.

Project description:BackgroundBeta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive heart failure in children differs from that in adults in terms of characteristics, aetiology, and drug clearance. Therefore, paediatric needs must be specifically investigated. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2009.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of beta-adrenoceptor-blockers (beta-blockers) in children with congestive heart failure.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to November 2015. Bibliographies of identified studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.Selection criteriaRandomised, controlled, clinical trials investigating the effect of beta-blocker therapy on paediatric congestive heart failure.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted and assessed data from the included trials.Main resultsWe identified four new studies for the review update; the review now includes seven studies with 420 participants. Four small studies with 20 to 30 children each, and two larger studies of 80 children each, showed an improvement of congestive heart failure with beta-blocker therapy. A larger study with 161 participants showed no evidence of benefit over placebo in a composite measure of heart failure outcomes. The included studies showed no significant difference in mortality or heart transplantation rates between the beta-blocker and control groups. No significant adverse events were reported with beta-blockers, apart from one episode of complete heart block. A meta-analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and fractional shortening (LVFS) data showed a very small improvement with beta-blockers. However, there were vast differences in the age, age range, and health of the participants (aetiology and severity of heart failure; heterogeneity of diagnoses and co-morbidities); there was a range of treatments across studies (choice of beta-blocker, dosing, duration of treatment); and a lack of standardised methods and outcome measures. Therefore, the primary outcomes could not be pooled in meta-analyses.Authors' conclusionsThere is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of beta-blockers in children with congestive heart failure, or to propose a paediatric dosing scheme. However, the sparse data available suggested that children with congestive heart failure might benefit from beta-blocker treatment. Further investigations in clearly defined populations with standardised methodology are required to establish guidelines for therapy. Pharmacokinetic investigations of beta-blockers in children are also required to provide effective dosing in future trials.

Dataset Information

Processes and Outcomes of Congestive Heart Failure Care by Different Types of Primary Care Models.

Publications

Processes and Outcomes of Congestive Heart Failure Care by Different Types of Primary Care Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure