Case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations globally have contributed to increasing numbers of people living with frailty, which has significant implications for use of health and care services and costs. The British Geriatrics Society defines frailty as "a distinctive health state related to the ageing process in which multiple body systems gradually lose their inbuilt reserves". This leads to an increased susceptibility to adverse outcomes, such as reduced physical function, poorer quality of life, hospital admissions, and mortality. Case management interventions delivered in community settings are led by a health or social care professional, supported by a multidisciplinary team, and focus on the planning, provision, and co-ordination of care to meet the needs of the individual. Case management is one model of integrated care that has gained traction with policymakers to improve outcomes for populations at high risk of decline in health and well-being. These populations include older people living with frailty, who commonly have complex healthcare and social care needs but can experience poorly co-ordinated care due to fragmented care systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of case management for integrated care of older people living with frailty compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Systems Evidence, and PDQ Evidence and databases from inception to 23 September 2022. We also searched clinical registries and relevant grey literature databases, checked references of included trials and relevant systematic reviews, conducted citation searching of included trials, and contacted topic experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared case management with standard care in community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older living with frailty. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (11,860 participants), all of which took place in high-income countries. Case management interventions in the included trials varied in terms of organisation, delivery, setting, and care providers involved. Most trials included a variety of healthcare and social care professionals, including nurse practitioners, allied healthcare professionals, social workers, geriatricians, physicians, psychologists, and clinical pharmacists. In nine trials, the case management intervention was delivered by nurses only. Follow-up ranged from three to 36 months. We judged most trials at unclear risk of selection and performance bias; this consideration, together with indirectness, justified downgrading the certainty of the evidence to low or moderate. Case management compared to standard care may result in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Mortality at 12 months' follow-up (7.0% in the intervention group versus 7.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15; I2 = 11%; 14 trials, 9924 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in place of residence to a nursing home at 12 months' follow-up (9.9% in the intervention group versus 13.4% in the control group; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 1108 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Quality of life at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; mean differences (MDs) ranged from -6.32 points (95% CI -11.04 to -1.59) to 6.1 points (95% CI -3.92 to 16.12) when reported; 11 trials, 9284 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Serious adverse effects at 12 to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 2 trials, 592 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in physical function at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; MDs ranged from -0.12 points (95% CI -0.93 to 0.68) to 3.4 points (95% CI -2.35 to 9.15) when reported; 16 trials, 10,652 participants; low-certainty evidence) Case management compared to standard care probably results in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Healthcare utilisation in terms of hospital admission at 12 months' follow-up (32.7% in the intervention group versus 36.0% in the control group; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; I2 = 43%; 6 trials, 2424 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) • Change in costs at six to 36 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 14 trials, 8486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which usually included healthcare service costs, intervention costs, and other costs such as informal care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found uncertain evidence regarding whether case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings, compared to standard care, improved patient and service outcomes or reduced costs. There is a need for further research to develop a clear taxonomy of intervention components, to determine the active ingredients that work in case management interventions, and identify how such interventions benefit some people and not others.

Multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals' perceptions of current and optimal acute rehabilitation, a hip fracture example A UK qualitative interview study informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVE: To understand multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals' perceptions of current and optimal provision of acute rehabilitation, perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation, and their implications for patient recovery, using hip fracture as an example. METHODS: A qualitative design was adopted using semi-structured telephone interviews with 20 members of the acute multidisciplinary healthcare team (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, physicians, nurses) working on orthopaedic wards at 15 different hospitals across the UK. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and then thematically analysed drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework to enhance our understanding of the findings. RESULTS: We identified four themes: conceptualising a model of rehabilitative practice, which reflected the perceived variability of rehabilitation models, along with facilitators and common patient and organisational barriers for optimal rehabilitation; competing professional and organisational goals, which highlighted the reported incompatibility between organisational goals and person-centred care shaping rehabilitation practices, particularly for more vulnerable patients; engaging teams in collaborative practice, which related to the expressed need to work well with all members of the multidisciplinary team to achieve the same person-centred goals and share rehabilitation practices; and engaging patients and their carers, highlighting the importance of their involvement to achieve a holistic and collaborative approach to rehabilitation in the acute setting. Barriers and facilitators within themes were underpinned by the lack or presence of adequate ways of communicating with patients, carers, and multidisciplinary team members; resources (e.g. equipment, staffing, group classes), and support from people in leadership positions such as management and senior staff. CONCLUSIONS: Cornerstones of optimal acute rehabilitation are effective communication and collaborative practices between the multidisciplinary team, patients and carers. Supportive management and leadership are central to optimise these processes. Organisational constraints are the most commonly perceived barrier to delivering effective rehabilitation in hospital settings, which exacerbate silo working and limited patient engagement.

Barriers and facilitators of mental health programmes in primary care in low-income and middle-income countries.

Integration of services into primary health care for people with common mental disorders is considered a key strategy to improve access to mental health care in low-income and middle-income countries, yet services at the primary care level are largely unavailable. We did a systematic review to understand the barriers and facilitators in the implementation of mental health programmes. We searched five databases and included studies published between Jan 1, 1990, and Sept 1, 2017, that used qualitative methods to assess the implementation of programmes for adults with common mental disorders at primary health-care settings in low-income and middle-income countries. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist was used to assess the quality of eligible papers. We used the so-called best fit framework approach to synthesise findings according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We identified 24 papers for inclusion. These papers described the implementation of nine programmes in 11 countries. Key factors included: the extent to which an organisation is ready for implementation; the attributes, knowledge, and beliefs of providers; complex service user needs; adaptability and perceived advantage of interventions; and the processes of planning and evaluating the implementation. Evidence on implementation of mental health programmes in low-income and middle-income countries is scarce. Synthesising results according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research helped to identify key areas for future action, including investment in primary health-care strengthening, capacity building for health providers, and increased support to address the social needs of service users.

Comparative case studies in integrated care implementation from across the globe: a quest for action.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care is the coordination of general and behavioral health and is a highly promising and practical approach to improving healthcare delivery and patient outcomes. While there is growing interest and investment in integrated care implementation internationally, there are no formal guidelines for integrated care implementation applicable to diverse healthcare systems. Furthermore, there is a complex interplay of factors at multiple levels of influence that are necessary for successful implementation of integrated care in health systems. METHODS: Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework (Aarons et al., 2011), a multiple case study design was used to address two research objectives: 1) To highlight current integrated care implementation efforts through seven international case studies that target a range of healthcare systems, patient populations and implementation strategies and outcomes, and 2) To synthesize the shared and unique challenges and successes across studies using the EPIS framework. RESULTS: The seven reported case studies represent integrated care implementation efforts from five countries and continents (United States, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Israel, and Nigeria), target a range of clinical populations and care settings, and span all phases of the EPIS framework. Qualitative synthesis of these case studies illuminated common outer context, inner context, bridging and innovation factors that were key drivers of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an agenda that outlines priority goals and related strategies to advance integrated care implementation research. These goals relate to: 1) the role of funding at multiple levels of implementation, 2) meaningful collaboration with stakeholders across phases of implementation and 3) clear communication to stakeholders about integrated care implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Service user, carer and provider perspectives on integrated care for older people with frailty, and factors perceived to facilitate and hinder implementation: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Older people with frailty (OPF) can experience reduced quality of care and adverse outcomes due to poorly coordinated and fragmented care, making this patient population a key target group for integrated care. This systematic review explores service user, carer and provider perspectives on integrated care for OPF, and factors perceived to facilitate and hinder implementation, to draw out implications for policy, practice and research. METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative studies identified from MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Social Sciences Citation Index, hand-searching of reference lists and citation tracking of included studies, and review of experts' online profiles. Quality of included studies was appraised with The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for qualitative research. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the synthesis. We identified four themes related to stakeholder perspectives on integrated care for OPF: different preferences for integrated care among service users, system and service organisation components, relational aspects of care and support, and stakeholder perceptions of outcomes. Service users and carers highlighted continuity of care with a professional they could trust, whereas providers emphasised improved coordination of care between providers in different care sectors as key strategies for integrated care. We identified three themes related to factors facilitating and hindering implementation: perceptions of the integrated care intervention and target population, service organisational factors and system level factors influencing implementation. Different stakeholder groups perceived the complexity of care needs of this patient population, difficulties with system navigation and access, and limited service user and carer involvement in care decisions as key factors hindering implementation. Providers mainly also highlighted other organisational and system factors perceived to facilitate and hinder implementation of integrated care for OPF. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities and differences in lay and professional stakeholder perspectives on integrated care for OPF and factors perceived to facilitate and hinder implementation were evident. Findings highlight the importance of addressing organisational and system level components of integrated care and factors influencing implementation for OPF. Greater attention needs to be placed on collaboratively involving service users, carers and providers to improve the co-design and implementation of integrated care programmes for this patient population.