RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Comorbid depression is a significant challenge for safety-net primary care systems. Team-based collaborative depression care is effective, but complex system factors in safety-net organizations impede adoption and result in persistent disparities in outcomes. Diabetes-Depression Care-management Adoption Trial (DCAT) evaluated whether depression care could be significantly improved by harnessing information and communication technologies to automate routine screening and monitoring of patient symptoms and treatment adherence and allow timely communication with providers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare 6-month outcomes of a technology-facilitated care model with a usual care model and a supported care model that involved team-based collaborative depression care for safety-net primary care adult patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: DCAT is a translational study in collaboration with Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the second largest safety-net care system in the United States. A comparative effectiveness study with quasi-experimental design was conducted in three groups of adult patients with type 2 diabetes to compare three delivery models: usual care, supported care, and technology-facilitated care. Six-month outcomes included depression and diabetes care measures and patient-reported outcomes. Comparative treatment effects were estimated by linear or logistic regression models that used generalized propensity scores to adjust for sampling bias inherent in the nonrandomized design. RESULTS: DCAT enrolled 1406 patients (484 in usual care, 480 in supported care, and 442 in technology-facilitated care), most of whom were Hispanic or Latino and female. Compared with usual care, both the supported care and technology-facilitated care groups were associated with significant reduction in depressive symptoms measured by scores on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (least squares estimate, LSE: usual care=6.35, supported care=5.05, technology-facilitated care=5.16; P value: supported care vs usual care=.02, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.02); decreased prevalence of major depression (odds ratio, OR: supported care vs usual care=0.45, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=0.33; P value: supported care vs usual care=.02, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.007); and reduced functional disability as measured by Sheehan Disability Scale scores (LSE: usual care=3.21, supported care=2.61, technology-facilitated care=2.59; P value: supported care vs usual care=.04, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.03). Technology-facilitated care was significantly associated with depression remission (technology-facilitated care vs usual care: OR=2.98, P=.04); increased satisfaction with care for emotional problems among depressed patients (LSE: usual care=3.20, technology-facilitated care=3.70; P=.05); reduced total cholesterol level (LSE: usual care=176.40, technology-facilitated care=160.46; P=.01); improved satisfaction with diabetes care (LSE: usual care=4.01, technology-facilitated care=4.20; P=.05); and increased odds of taking an glycated hemoglobin test (technology-facilitated care vs usual care: OR=3.40, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both the technology-facilitated care and supported care delivery models showed potential to improve 6-month depression and functional disability outcomes. The technology-facilitated care model has a greater likelihood to improve depression remission, patient satisfaction, and diabetes care quality.
Assuntos
Depressão/terapia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/psicologia , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administração , Comorbidade , Depressão/patologia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/patologia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
Streptococcus pneumoniae is a principal cause of serious illness, including bacteremia, meningitis, and pneumonia, worldwide. Pneumococcal immunization is proven to reduce morbidity and mortality in high-risk adult and elderly populations. Current pneumococcal vaccination practices are suboptimal in part because of recommendation complexity, the high cost of provider-driven immunization interventions, and outreach methods that are not patient-centric. These barriers are amplified within the safety net. This paper identifies efforts by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services to increase pneumococcal immunization rates for adult indigent patient populations. A 4-part approach will be used to increase vaccination rates: (1) protocol driven care, (2) staff education, (3) electronic identification of eligible patients, and (4) automated patient outreach and scheduling. The proposed analytics plan and potential for scalability are described. (Population Health Management 2016;19:240-247).
Assuntos
Difusão de Inovações , Programas de Imunização , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Assistência Centrada no Paciente , Infecções Pneumocócicas/prevenção & controle , Melhoria de Qualidade , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Adulto JovemRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Attending physician judgment is the traditional standard of care for emergency department (ED) admission decisions. The extent to which variability in admission decisions affect cost and quality is not well understood. We sought to determine the impact of variability in admission decisions on cost and quality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study of patients presenting to a university-affiliated, urban ED from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The main outcome measures were admission rate, fiscal indicators (Medicaid-denied payment days), and quality indicators (15- and 30-day ED returns; delayed hospital admissions). We asked each Attending to estimate their inpatient admission rate and correlated their personal assessment with actual admission rates. RESULTS: Admission rates, even after adjusting for known confounders, were highly variable (15.2%-32.0%) and correlated with Medicaid denied-payment day rates (p=0.038). There was no correlation with quality outcome measures (30-day ED return or delayed hospital admission). There was no significant correlation between actual and self-described admission rate; the range of mis-estimation was 0% to 117%. CONCLUSION: Emergency medicine attending admission rates at this institution are highly variable, unexplained by known confounding variables, and unrelated to quality of care, as measured by 30-day ED return or delayed hospital admission. Admission optimization represents an important untapped potential for cost reduction through avoidable hospitalizations, with no apparent adverse effects on quality.