Kern Lisa M, Riffin Catherine, Phongtankuel Veerawat, Banerjee Samprit, Ringel Joanna B, Aucapina Joselyne E, Tobin Jonathan N, Fisseha Semhar, Meiri Helena, Han Jessica, Wu Kelly, Bialor Jamie, Bell Sigall K, Casale Paul N
Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Clinical Directors Network, New York, New York, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2025 Jun 14. doi: 10.1111/jgs.19579.
We sought to determine the comparative effectiveness of two strategies for assigning care coordinators to people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers.
We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial embedded in a Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) in New York, NY in 2022-2024. We included community-dwelling PLWD ≥ 65 years who were attributed to the ACO and had highly fragmented ambulatory care in the previous year (reversed Bice-Boxerman Index ≥ 0.86). The trial compared usual care (assigning care coordinators to PLWD after hospital discharge) to usual care plus proactive outreach, which assigned care coordinators to PLWD if they or their caregivers reported difficulty with care coordination on a telephone survey. Participants were followed for the combined outcome of emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization.
Among the 385 PLWD in the trial, the mean age was 82.6 years (SD 6.9), and 56.4% were female. Overall, participants had had a mean of 14.9 ambulatory visits to 8.9 different providers the previous year. The acceptance rate of care management was higher in the control group (73.7%) than in the intervention group (38.0%). Care coordinators were ultimately assigned to 14 of 192 PLWD in the control group (7.3%) and 19 of 193 PLWD in the intervention group (9.8%). The intention-to-treat analysis (N = 385) found a trend toward fewer ED visits in the intervention group (0.14 ED visits per 100 person-days alive vs. 0.18 ED visits per 100 person-days alive, p = 0.07) but no difference in the combined outcome of ED visit or hospitalization (p = 0.71).
Although the particular intervention we tested was not more effective than usual care, this trial is novel in that it used highly fragmented care as an inclusion criterion and shows that more work is needed to address fragmented care among PLWD.
我们试图确定两种为痴呆症患者(PLWD)及其照护者分配照护协调员的策略的相对有效性。
2022年至2024年,我们在纽约市的一个医疗保险责任医疗组织(ACO)中进行了一项实用随机临床试验。我们纳入了年龄≥65岁、居住在社区、隶属于该ACO且上一年门诊护理极度分散(反向比塞 - 博克斯曼指数≥0.86)的PLWD。该试验将常规护理(出院后为PLWD分配照护协调员)与常规护理加主动外展服务进行了比较,后者在电话调查中若PLWD或其照护者报告护理协调有困难,就为其分配照护协调员。对参与者进行随访,观察其急诊就诊或住院的综合结局。
试验中的385名PLWD,平均年龄为82.6岁(标准差6.9),56.4%为女性。总体而言,参与者上一年平均去8.9个不同的医疗服务提供者处进行了14.9次门诊就诊。对照组的护理管理接受率(73.7%)高于干预组(38.0%)。对照组192名PLWD中有14名(7.3%)最终被分配了照护协调员,干预组193名PLWD中有19名(9.8%)最终被分配了照护协调员。意向性分析(N = 385)发现干预组急诊就诊次数有减少的趋势(每100人日存活时间0.14次急诊就诊 vs. 每100人日存活时间0.18次急诊就诊,p = 0.07),但急诊就诊或住院的综合结局无差异(p = 0.71)。
尽管我们测试的特定干预措施并不比常规护理更有效,但该试验的新颖之处在于它将高度分散的护理作为纳入标准,表明需要做更多工作来解决PLWD中的护理分散问题。