RESUMEN
To examine the effectiveness of integrated care intervention (ICI) models (stand-alone or combination of self-management, discharge management, case management and multidisciplinary teams models) targeting patients with one or more chronic conditions, and to identify outcome measures/indicators of effectiveness, we conducted a systematic review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Included reviews comprise ICIs targeting adult patients with one or more long-term conditions. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: 60 reviews were included in the final analysis; 28 reviews evaluated ICIs focused on self-management, 4 on case management, 10 on discharge management and 5 on multidisciplinary teams; 13 reviews assessed multiple interventions that were labelled as complex. Across all reviews, only 19 reviews included intervention with multiple ICIs. Overall, interventions with multiple components, compared with interventions with single components, were more likely to improve hospital use outcomes effectively. Clinical/lifestyle/condition-specific outcomes were more likely to be improved by self-management interventions. Outcome measures identified could be classified into three main categories: organisational, patient-centred and clinical/lifestyle/condition-specific. The findings of this review may provide inputs to future design and evaluation of ICIs.
RESUMEN
Objectives: First impact assessment analysis of an integrated care model (ICM) to reduce hospital activity in the London Borough of Hillingdon, UK. Methods: We evaluated a population-based ICM consisting of multiple interventions based on self-management, multidisciplinary teams, case management and discharge management. The sample included 331 330 registered Hillingdon residents (at the time of data extraction) between October 2018 and July 2020. Longitudinal data was extracted from the Whole Systems Integrated Care database. Interrupted time series Poisson and Negative binomial regressions were used to examine changes in non-elective hospital admissions (NEL admissions), accident and emergency visits (A&E) and length of stay (LoS) at the hospital. Multiple imputations were used to replace missing data. Subgroup analysis of various groups with and without long-term conditions (LTC) was also conducted using the same models. Results: In the whole registered population of Hillingdon at the time of data collection, gradual decline over time in NEL admissions (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92), A&E visits (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95) and LoS (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94) following an immediate increase during the first months of implementation in the three outcomes was observed. Subgroup analysis across different groups, including those with and without LTCs, showed similar effects. Sensitivity analysis did not show a notable change compared with the original analysis. Conclusion: The Hillingdon ICM showed effectiveness in reducing NEL admissions, A&E visits and LoS. However, further investigations and analyses could confirm the results of this study and rule out the potential effects of some confounding events, such as the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic.