26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Improving care for older people with long-term conditions and social care needs in Salford: the CLASSIC mixed-methods study, including RCT

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Salford Integrated Care Programme (SICP) was a large-scale transformation project to improve care for older people with long-term conditions and social care needs. We report an evaluation of the ability of the SICP to deliver an enhanced experience of care, improved quality of life, reduced costs of care and improved cost-effectiveness.

          Objectives

          To explore the process of implementation of the SICP and the impact on patient outcomes and costs.

          Design

          Qualitative methods (interviews and observations) to explore implementation, a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial to assess patient outcomes through quasi-experiments and a formal trial, and an analysis of routine data sets and appropriate comparators using non-randomised methodologies.

          Setting

          Salford in the north-west of England.

          Participants

          Older people aged ≥ 65 years, carers, and health and social care professionals.

          Interventions

          A large-scale integrated care project with three core mechanisms of integration (community assets, multidisciplinary groups and an ‘integrated contact centre’).

          Main outcome measures

          Patient self-management, care experience and quality of life, and health-care utilisation and costs.

          Data sources

          Professional and patient interviews, patient self-report measures, and routine quantitative data on service utilisation.

          Results

          The SICP and subsequent developments have been sustained by strong partnerships between organisations. The SICP achieved ‘functional integration’ through the pooling of health and social care budgets, the development of the Alliance Agreement between four organisations and the development of the shared care record. ‘Service-level’ integration was slow and engagement with general practice was a challenge. We saw only minor changes in patient experience measures over the period of the evaluation (both improvements and reductions), with some increase in the use of community assets and care plans. Compared with other sites, the difference in the rates of admissions showed an increase in emergency admissions. Patient experience of health coaching was largely positive, although the effects of health coaching on activation and depression were not statistically significant. Economic analyses suggested that coaching was likely to be cost-effective, generating improvements in quality of life [mean incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.019, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.006 to 0.043] at increased cost (mean incremental total cost increase of £150.58, 95% CI –£470.611 to £711.776).

          Limitations

          The Comprehensive Longitudinal Assessment of Salford Integrated Care study represents a single site evaluation, with consequent limits on external validity. Patient response rates to the cohort survey were < 40%.

          Conclusions

          The SICP has been implemented in a way that is consistent with the original vision. However, there has been more rapid success in establishing new integrated structures (such as a formal integrated care organisation), rather than in delivering mechanisms of integration at sufficient scale to have a large impact on patient outcomes.

          Future work

          Further research could focus on each of the mechanisms of integration. The multidisciplinary groups may require improved targeting of patients or disease subgroups to demonstrate effectiveness. Development of a proven model of health coaching that can be implemented at scale is required, especially one that would provide cost savings for commissioners or providers. Similarly, further exploration is required to assess the longer-term benefits of community assets and whether or not health impacts translate to reductions in care use.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12286422.

          Funding

          This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure.

          The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 22-item measure that assesses patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management. The measure was developed using Rasch analyses and is an interval level, unidimensional, Guttman-like measure. The current analysis is aimed at reducing the number of items in the measure while maintaining adequate precision. We relied on an iterative use of Rasch analysis to identify items that could be eliminated without loss of significant precision and reliability. With each item deletion, the item scale locations were recalibrated and the person reliability evaluated to check if and how much of a decline in precision of measurement resulted from the deletion of the item. The data used in the analysis were the same data used in the development of the original 22-item measure. These data were collected in 2003 via a telephone survey of 1,515 randomly selected adults. Principal Findings. The analysis yielded a 13-item measure that has psychometric properties similar to the original 22-item version. The scores for the 13-item measure range in value from 38.6 to 53.0 (on a theoretical 0-100 point scale). The range of values is essentially unchanged from the original 22-item version. Subgroup analysis suggests that there is a slight loss of precision with some subgroups. The results of the analysis indicate that the shortened 13-item version is both reliable and valid.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature.

            A 'patient-centred' approach is increasingly regarded as crucial for the delivery of high quality care by doctors. However, there is considerable ambiguity concerning the exact meaning of the term and the optimum method of measuring the process and outcomes of patient-centred care. This paper reviews the conceptual and empirical literature in order to develop a model of the various aspects of the doctor-patient relationship encompassed by the concept of 'patient-centredness' and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of alternative methods of measurement. Five conceptual dimensions are identified: biopsychosocial perspective; 'patient-as-person'; sharing power and responsibility; therapeutic alliance; and 'doctor-as-person'. Two main approaches to measurement are evaluated: self-report instruments and external observation methods. A number of recommendations concerning the measurement of patient-centredness are made.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC).

              There is a need for a brief, validated patient self-report instrument to assess the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the Chronic Care Model-measuring care that is patient-centered, proactive, planned and includes collaborative goal setting; problem-solving and follow-up support. A total of 283 adults reporting one or more chronic illness from a large integrated health care delivery system were studied. Participants completed the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) as well as measures of demographic factors, a patient activation scale, and subscales from a primary care assessment instrument so that we could evaluate measurement performance, construct, and concurrent validity of the PACIC. The PACIC consists of 5 scales and an overall summary score, each having good internal consistency for brief scales. As predicted, the PACIC was only slightly correlated with age and gender, and unrelated to education. Contrary to prediction, it was only slightly correlated (r = 0.13) with number of chronic conditions. The PACIC demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (r = 0.58 during the course of 3 months) and was correlated moderately, as predicted (r = 0.32-0.60, median = 0.50, P < 0.001) to measures of primary care and patient activation. The PACIC appears to be a practical instrument that is reliable and has face, construct, and concurrent validity. The resulting questionnaire is in the public domain, and recommendations for its use in research and quality improvement are outlined.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Services and Delivery Research
                Health Serv Deliv Res
                National Institute for Health Research
                2050-4349
                2050-4357
                August 2018
                August 2018
                : 6
                : 31
                : 1-188
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [2 ]Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [3 ]Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [4 ]Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
                [5 ]Policy Research Unit in Commissioning and the Healthcare System, Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [7 ]National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Greater Manchester, Alliance Business School Manchester, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [8 ]National Institute for Health Research Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [9 ]Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
                [10 ]Health Research, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK
                [11 ]Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                Article
                10.3310/hsdr06310
                30183219
                25bb7a9f-b547-4d3d-8bb2-2c8cea6ac60a
                © 2018

                Free to read

                http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article