A case management intervention in stroke care: Evaluation of a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with initial stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at high risk for further strokes, death or cardiovascular events. Even the first-ever stroke is associated with a high chance of disability and need for assistance. The risk of long-term health care demands increases with each subsequent event. Although the inpatient sector already provides a high standard of care in Germany, it can be difficult to obtain cross-sectoral aftercare. Thus, the study investigated whether a structured case management program can avoid stroke recurrences. METHODS: The study was conducted with a quasi-experimental study design in three regions in North Rhine-Westphalia. Patients with first-ever stroke or TIA were eligible to participate. The intervention group was prospectively recruited and supported by a case manager during a one-year follow-up. Optimal Full Matching was used to generate a control group based on statutory claims data. The primary outcome was the stroke recurrence. Recurrence and mortality were analysed by using Cox regression; other secondary outcomes were examined with test-based procedures and with logistic regressions. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: From June 2018 to March 2020, 1,512 patients were enrolled in the intervention group. Claims data from 19,104 patients have been transmitted for establishing the control group. After the matching process, 1,167 patients of each group were included in the analysis. 70 recurrences (6.0%) occurred in the intervention group and 67 recurrences (5.7%) in the control group. With a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI: [1.42-0.69]; p=0.69), no significant effect was found for the primary outcome. With regard to the secondary outcome mortality, 36 patients in the intervention group and 46 in the control group died (3.1% vs. 3.9%). Again, there was no significant effect (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: [0.58-1.28], p=0.46). DISCUSSION: Based on the present findings, the case management approach for stroke patients evaluated here was unable to demonstrate an improvement in health care. Potential effects of case management might not be adequately depicted in short observation periods. Thus, future studies should consider longer observation periods. CONCLUSION: A panel of experts should discuss whether the core approach of case management to support cost-intensive individual cases is contrary to a broad implementation with a one-size-fits-all intervention for stroke patients. In this case, further research should focus on more specific study populations.

A Case Management Approach in Stroke Care: A Mixed-Methods Acceptance Analysis from the Perspective of the Medical Profession.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: In terms of continuous and coordinated health care, cross-sectoral care structures are crucial. However, the German health care system is characterized by fragmentation of medical services and responsibilities. This fragmentation leads to multiple interfaces frequently causing loss of information, effectiveness, and quality. The concept of case management has the potential to improve cooperation between sectors and health care providers. Hence, a case management intervention for patients with stroke was evaluated with an acceptance analysis on the physicians' willingness to cooperate with stroke managers and their assessment of the potential of case management for the health care of patients with stroke. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: Primary practice settings included physicians working in the hospital, rehabilitation, and outpatient sectors who had actual or potential contact with a stroke case manager within the project region of East Westphalia-Lippe. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: The analysis was conducted using a mixed-methods approach. Expert interviews were conducted in 2020. Afterward a questionnaire was developed, which was then distributed to physicians in 2021. Both the interviews and the questionnaire included questions on conceptual knowledge and concrete expectations prior of the project, on experiences during the project and on recommendations and physicians' assessment of future organization in health care to classify and describe the acceptance. RESULTS: Nine interviews were conducted and 23 questionnaires were completed. Only slightly more than 50% of the physicians had prior knowledge of the case management approach. Overall, ambiguous results concerning the acceptance of case managers were revealed. Additional personal assistance for patients with stroke was seen as beneficial at the same time critical perspectives regarding further fragmentation of health care and overlapping of competences with existing professional groups or forms of health care were collected. General practitioners in particular were critical of the case management approach. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: From the physicians' point of view, at least two changes are necessary for the project approach to be integrated into standard care. First, the target group should be adapted according to the case management approach. Second, the delegation of tasks and responsibilities to case managers should be revised. The sectoral difference in the acceptance of case managers by physicians indicates that active cooperation and communication in everyday work has direct impact on the acceptance of a new occupational profession. Physician acceptance has a significant impact on the implementation of new treatment modalities and thus influences the overall quality of health care.

SALUS-a non-inferiority trial to compare self-tonometry in glaucoma patients with regular inpatient intraocular pressure controls: study design and set-up.

PURPOSE: The SALUS study aims to improve the healthcare situation for glaucoma patients in Germany. In order to detect diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuations, inpatient monitoring of IOP in an eye hospital for a minimum of 24 h is the current standard. SALUS assesses the benefits of a new form of outpatient care, where IOP can be measured by the patients themselves at home using a self-tonometer. This approach should promote the patient's health competence and empowerment within the healthcare system while reducing treatment costs. METHODS: The SALUS study is a randomized controlled, open non-inferiority trial, alongside an economic analysis, determining whether outpatient monitoring of IOP with self-tonometry is at least as effective as current standard care and would reduce treatment costs. Participants (n = 1980) will be recruited by local ophthalmologists in the area of Westphalia-Lippe, Germany, and randomized to receive 7-day outpatient or 24-h inpatient monitoring. Participants in both study arms will also receive 24-h blood pressure monitoring. Furthermore, patient data from both study groups will be collected in an electronic case file (ECF), accessible to practitioners, hospitals, and the study participants. The primary endpoint is the percentage of patients with IOP peaks, defined as levels 30% above the patient-specific target pressure. Data will also be collected during initial and final examinations, and at 3, 6, and 9 months after the initial examination. RESULTS: The study implementation and trial management are represented below. CONCLUSION: SALUS is a pioneering prospective clinical trial focused on the care of glaucoma patients in Germany. If SALUS is successful, it could improve the healthcare situation and health literacy of the patients through the introduction of various telemedical components. Furthermore, the approach would almost certainly reduce the treatment costs of glaucoma care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04698876, registration date: 11/25/2020. DRKS-ID: DRKS00023676, registration date: 11/26/2020.

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008-2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work. RESULTS: Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs. CONCLUSIONS: Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.