Dataset Information

Proactive healthcare for frail elderly persons: study protocol for a prospective controlled primary care intervention in Sweden.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The provision of healthcare services is not dedicated to promoting maintenance of function and does not target frail older persons at high risk of the main causes of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of a proactive medical and social intervention in comparison with conventional care on a group of persons aged 75 and older selected by statistical prediction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In a pragmatic multicentre primary care setting (n=1600), a prediction model to find elderly (75+) persons at high risk of complex medical care or hospitalisation is used, followed by proactive medical and social care, in comparison with usual care. The study started in April 2017 with a run-in period until December 2017, followed by a 2-year continued intervention phase that will continue until the end of December 2019. The intervention includes several tools (multiprofessional team for rehabilitation, social support, medical care home visits and telephone support). Primary outcome measures are healthcare cost, number of hospital care episodes, hospital care days and mortality. Secondary outcome measures are number of outpatient visits, cost of social care and informal care, number of prescribed drugs, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, sense of security, functional status and ability. We also study the care of elderly persons in a broader sense, by covering the perspectives of the patients, the professional staff and the management, and on a political level, by using semistructured interviews, qualitative methods and a questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Approved by the regional ethical review board in Linköping (Dnr 2016/347-31). The results will be presented in scientific journals and scientific meetings during 2019-2022 and are planned to be used for the development of future care models. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03180606.

SUBMITTER: Marcusson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6538001 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proactive healthcare for frail elderly persons: study protocol for a prospective controlled primary care intervention in Sweden.

Marcusson Jan J Nord Magnus M Johansson Maria M MM Alwin Jenny J Levin Lars-Åke LÅ Dannapfel Petra P Thomas Kristin K Poksinska Bonnie B Sverker Annette A Olaison Anna A Cedersund Elisabet E Kelfve Susanne S Motel-Klingebiel Andreas A Hellström Ingrid I Kullberg Agneta A Böttiger Ylva Y Dong Huan-Ji HJ Peolsson Anneli A Wass Malin M Lyth Johan J Andersson Agneta A

BMJ open 20190522 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>The provision of healthcare services is not dedicated to promoting maintenance of function and does not target frail older persons at high risk of the main causes of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of a proactive medical and social intervention in comparison with conventional care on a group of persons aged 75 and older selected by statistical prediction.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>In a pragmatic multicentre primary care setting (n= ...[more]

PMID: 31122995

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe article reports on the cost-effectiveness of the proactive, integrated primary care program Finding and Follow-up of Frail older persons (FFF) compared with usual primary care for community-dwelling frail older persons in the Netherlands.MethodsThis study had a matched quasi-experimental design (pretest and posttest). The economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 12 months. The target population consisted of community-dwelling frail older persons aged ≥ 75 years in the FFF intervention group (11 general practitioner (GP) practices) and in the control group receiving usual care (4 GP practices). The effectiveness measures for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were subjective well-being (Social Production Function Instrument for the Level of well-being short; SPF-ILs) and QALYs (EuroQol; EQ-5D-3L), respectively. Costs were assessed using resource use questionnaires. Differences in mean effectiveness between groups were assessed using univariate, multilevel and propensity score matched analyses, with and without imputation of missing values. Differences in costs were assessed using Mann-Whitney U-tests and independent samples t-tests. Bootstrapping was performed, and predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were depicted on cost-effectiveness planes.ResultsThe various analyses showed slightly different results with respect to differences in estimated costs and effects. Multilevel analyses showed a small but significant difference between the groups for well-being, in favor of the control group. No significant differences between groups in terms of QALYs were found. Imputed data showed that mean total costs were significantly higher in the intervention group at follow-up.ConclusionProactive, integrated care for community-dwelling frail older persons as provided in the FFF program is most likely not a cost-effective initiative, compared with usual primary care in the Netherlands, in terms of well-being and QALYs over a 12-month period.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty in elderly patients is associated with an increased risk of poor health outcomes, including falls, delirium, malnutrition, hospitalisation, and mortality. Because polypharmacy is recognised as a possible major contributor to the pathogenesis of geriatric frailty, reducing inappropriate medication exposure is supposed to be a promising approach to improve health-related quality of life and prevent adverse outcomes. A major challenge for the process of deprescribing of inappropriate polypharmacy is to improve the communication between general practitioner (GPs), patient and family carer. This study investigates the effects of a complex intervention in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy living at home. METHODS:This is a cluster randomised controlled trial including 136 GPs and 676 patients. Patients with a positive clinical screening for frailty are eligible if they are aged 70?years or older, receiving family or professional nursing care at home, and taking in five or more drugs per day. Exclusion criteria are higher grade of dementia and life expectancy of 6 months or less. The GPs of the intervention group receive an educational training promoting a deprescribing guideline and providing information on how to conduct a family conference focussing on prioritisation of treatment goals concerning drug therapy. During the 1-year intervention, GPs are expected to perform a total of three family conferences, each including a structured medication review with patients and their family carers. GPs of the control group will receive no training and will deliver care as usual. Geriatric assessment of all patients will be performed by study nurses during home visits at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the hospitalisation rate during the observation period of 12?months. Secondary outcomes are number and appropriateness of medications, mobility, weakness, cognition, depressive disorder, health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, weight, and costs of health care use. DISCUSSION:This study will provide evidence for a pragmatic co-operative and patient-centred educational intervention using family conferences to improve patient safety in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015055 (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform [ICTRP]). Registered on 6 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundProactive integrated virtual healthcare resource (VHR) use can improve efficiency, maximize resource capacity for delivering optimal coordinated care and improve patient outcomes. Proactive integrated VHR use is vital for delivering high quality care. Our objectives were to identify proactive integrated VHR use among primary care teams, best practices and targeted implementation strategies to promote proactive integrated VHR use.MethodsThis is a mixed-method descriptive study. We employed a community-based participatory approach to collect data and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze and contextualize findings. A cross-sectional sample of primary care team members (n = 65) from a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center participated in focus groups, follow-up interviews (n = 16), and respond to self-report surveys. Operational subject matter experts (n = 15) participated in informant interviews.ResultsSurvey data described current use and factors that influenced singular VHR use and were convergent with qualitative findings. Focus group and interview data described no evidence of proactive integrated VHR use. Differences and similarities were identified between both utilization groups, such as facilitators and barriers, recommendations, patient education and preferred implementation strategies. All groups reported issues around VHR availability knowledge and access and functionality. Participants identified the need for best practices that are specific to care tasks and performance measures. Expert informant interviews identified a list of VHR tools that could be proactively integrated across the healthcare continuum.ConclusionsHealth systems are leveraging technologies to proactively integrate VHR to maximize information exchange, clinical decision support and patient engagement. VHR is critical during global pandemics, such as COVID-19, to maintain access to care coordination and delivery while abiding by public health recommendations. Though recent requirements for reducing contact create an intrinsic motivation, cultural change through education and best practices of proactive integrated use across the healthcare continuum is needed to create a culture of VHR super users.

Project description:BackgroundOlder Canadians are high users of health care services, however the health care system is not well-designed to meet the complex needs of many older adults. Older persons often look to their primary care practitioners to assess their needs and coordinate their care. The intervention seeks to improve primary care for older persons living with frailty and will be implemented in six primary care clinics in three Canadian provinces. Presently, more than 1.6 million older Canadians are living with frailty, and this is projected to increase to 2.5 million within a decade (Canadian Frailty Network, Frailty Matters, 2020). The model will include frailty screening, an online portal to expedite referrals and improve coordination with community services, and several tools and techniques to support patient and family engagement and shared decision-making. Our project is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder LJ, et al. Implement Scil, 4, 50, 2009). As others have done, we adapted the CFIR for our work. Our adapted framework combines elements of the socio-ecological model, key concepts from the CFIR, and elements from other implementation science frameworks. Nested within a broader mixed-method implementation study, the focus of this paper is to outline our guiding conceptual framework and qualitative methods protocol.MethodsWe will use the adapted CFIR framework to inform the data we collect and our analytic approach. Our work is divided into three phases: (1) baseline assessment of 'usual care'; (2) tailoring and implementing a new primary care model; and (3) evaluation. In each of these phases we will engage in qualitative data collection, including clinical observations, focus groups, in-depth interviews and extensive field notes. At each site we will collect data with health care providers, key informants (e.g., executive directors), and rostered patients ≥ 70 years. We will engage in team-based analysis across multiple sites, three provinces and two languages through regular telephone conferences, a comprehensive analysis codebook, leadership from our Qualitative Working Group and a collective appreciation that "science is a team sport" (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 471, 701-702, 2013).DiscussionOutcomes of this research may be used by other research teams who chose to adapt the CFIR framework to reflect the unique contexts of their work, and clinicians seeking to implement our model, or other models of care for frail older patients in primary care.Trial registrationU.S. National Library of Medicine, NCT03442426 . Registered 22 February 2018- Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Proactive healthcare for frail elderly persons: study protocol for a prospective controlled primary care intervention in Sweden.

Publications

Proactive healthcare for frail elderly persons: study protocol for a prospective controlled primary care intervention in Sweden.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets