Counsell Steven R, Callahan Christopher M, Clark Daniel O, Tu Wanzhu, Buttar Amna B, Stump Timothy E, Ricketts Gretchen D
Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
JAMA. 2007 Dec 12;298(22):2623-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.22.2623.
Low-income seniors frequently have multiple chronic medical conditions for which they often fail to receive the recommended standard of care.
To test the effectiveness of a geriatric care management model on improving the quality of care for low-income seniors in primary care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Controlled clinical trial of 951 adults 65 years or older with an annual income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, whose primary care physicians were randomized from January 2002 through August 2004 to participate in the intervention (474 patients) or usual care (477 patients) in community-based health centers.
Patients received 2 years of home-based care management by a nurse practitioner and social worker who collaborated with the primary care physician and a geriatrics interdisciplinary team and were guided by 12 care protocols for common geriatric conditions.
The Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short-Form (SF-36) scales and summary measures; instrumental and basic activities of daily living (ADLs); and emergency department (ED) visits not resulting in hospitalization and hospitalizations.
Intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant improvements for intervention patients compared with usual care at 24 months in 4 of 8 SF-36 scales: general health (0.2 vs -2.3, P = .045), vitality (2.6 vs -2.6, P < .001), social functioning (3.0 vs -2.3, P = .008), and mental health (3.6 vs -0.3, P = .001); and in the Mental Component Summary (2.1 vs -0.3, P < .001). No group differences were found for ADLs or death. The cumulative 2-year ED visit rate per 1000 was lower in the intervention group (1445 [n = 474] vs 1748 [n = 477], P = .03) but hospital admission rates per 1000 were not significantly different between groups (700 [n = 474] vs 740 [n = 477], P = .66). In a predefined group at high risk of hospitalization (comprising 112 intervention and 114 usual-care patients), ED visit and hospital admission rates were lower for intervention patients in the second year (848 [n = 106] vs 1314 [n = 105]; P = .03 and 396 [n = 106] vs 705 [n = 105]; P = .03, respectively).
Integrated and home-based geriatric care management resulted in improved quality of care and reduced acute care utilization among a high-risk group. Improvements in health-related quality of life were mixed and physical function outcomes did not differ between groups. Future studies are needed to determine whether more specific targeting will improve the program's effectiveness and whether reductions in acute care utilization will offset program costs.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182962.
低收入老年人常常患有多种慢性疾病,他们往往无法获得推荐的标准治疗。
测试老年护理管理模式对改善初级保健中低收入老年人护理质量的有效性。
设计、地点和患者:对951名65岁及以上、年收入低于联邦贫困线200%的成年人进行对照临床试验,其初级保健医生在2002年1月至2004年8月期间被随机分配,以参与社区卫生中心的干预措施(474例患者)或常规护理(477例患者)。
患者接受了两年的居家护理管理,由一名执业护士和一名社会工作者提供,他们与初级保健医生和老年医学跨学科团队合作,并遵循12项常见老年疾病护理方案。
医学结局简表36项(SF - 36)量表及汇总指标;工具性日常生活活动和基本日常生活活动;以及未导致住院的急诊科就诊和住院情况。
意向性分析显示,与常规护理相比,干预组患者在24个月时,8项SF - 36量表中的4项有显著改善:总体健康状况(0.2对 - 2.3,P = 0.045)、活力(2.6对 - 2.6,P < 0.001)、社会功能(3.0对 - 2.3,P = 0.008)和心理健康(3.6对 - 0.3,P = 0.001);以及心理综合指标(2.1对 - 0.3,P < 0.001)。在日常生活活动或死亡率方面未发现组间差异。每1000人的累计2年急诊科就诊率在干预组较低(1445 [n = 474]对1748 [n = 477],P = 0.03),但每1000人的住院率在组间无显著差异(700 [n = 474]对740 [n = 并77],P = 0.66)。在一个预先定义的高住院风险组(包括112例干预患者和114例常规护理患者)中,干预组患者在第二年的急诊科就诊率和住院率较低(分别为848 [n = 106]对1314 [n = 105];P = 0.03和396 [n = 106]对705 [n = 105];P = 0.03)。
综合的居家老年护理管理提高了高危人群的护理质量并减少了急性护理的使用。与健康相关的生活质量改善情况不一,且两组间身体功能结局无差异。未来需要开展研究,以确定更具针对性的目标设定是否会提高该项目的有效性,以及急性护理使用的减少是否会抵消项目成本。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00182962。