Community-based integrated care versus hospital outpatient care for managing patients with complex type 2 diabetes: costing analysis.

Objective This study compared the cost of an integrated primary-secondary care general practitioner (GP)-based Beacon model with usual care at hospital outpatient departments (OPDs) for patients with complex type 2 diabetes. Methods A costing analysis was completed alongside a non-inferiority randomised control trial. Costs were calculated using information from accounting data and interviews with clinic managers. Two OPDs and three GP-based Beacon practices participated. In the Beacon practices, GPs with a special interest in advanced diabetes care worked with an endocrinologist and diabetes nurse educator to care for referred patients. The main outcome was incremental cost saving per patient course of treatment from a health system perspective. Uncertainty was characterised with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Results The Beacon model is cost saving: the incremental cost saving per patient was A$365 (95% confidence interval -A$901, A$55) and was cost saving in 93.7% of simulations. The key contributors to the variance in the cost saving per patient course of treatment were the mean number of patients seen per site and the number of additional presentations per course of treatment associated with the Beacon model. Conclusions Beacon clinics were less costly per patient course of treatment than usual care in hospital OPDs for equivalent clinical outcomes. Local contractual arrangements and potential variation in the operational cost structure are of significant consideration in determining the cost-efficiency of Beacon models. What is known about this topic? Despite the growing importance of achieving care quality within constrained budgets, there are few costing studies comparing clinically-equivalent hospital and community-based care models. What does this paper add? Costing analyses comparing hospital-based to GP-based health services require considerable effort and are complex. We show that GP-based Beacon clinics for patients with complex chronic disease can be less costly per patient course of treatment than usual care offered in hospital OPDs. What are the implications for practitioners? In addition to improving access and convenience for patients, transferring care from hospital to the community can reduce health system costs.

Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine if a Beacon model of integrated care utilising general practitioners (GPs) with special interests could achieve similar clinical outcomes to a hospital-based specialist diabetes outpatient clinic. METHODS: This pragmatic non-inferiority multisite randomised controlled trial assigned individuals with complex type 2 diabetes to care delivered by a Beacon clinic or to usual care delivered by a hospital outpatient department, in a 3:1 ratio. Owing to the nature of the study, researchers were only blinded during the allocation process. Eligible participants were aged 18 or over, had been referred by their usual GP to the hospital central referral hub with type 2 diabetes and had been triaged to be seen within 30 or 90 days. The intervention consisted of diabetes management in primary care by GPs with a special interest who had been upskilled in complex diabetes under the supervision of an endocrinologist. The primary outcome was HbA1c at 12 months post-recruitment. The non-inferiority margin was 4.4 mmol/mol (0.4%). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses are reported. RESULTS: Between 27 November 2012 and 14 July 2015, 352 individuals were recruited and 305 comprised the intention-to-treat sample (71 in usual care group and 234 in the Beacon model group). The Beacon model was non-inferior to usual care for both the per-protocol (difference -0.38 mmol/mol [95% CI -4.72, 3.96]; -0.03% [95% CI -0.43, 0.36]) and the intention-to-treat (difference -1.28 mmol/mol [95% CI -5.96, 3.40]; -0.12% [95% CI -0.55, 0.31]) analyses. Non-inferiority was sustained in a sensitivity analysis at 12 months. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes of BP, lipids or quality of life as measured by the 12 item short-form health survey (SF-12v2) and the diabetes-related quality of life (DQoL-Brief) survey. Safety indicators did not differ between groups. Participant satisfaction on the eight-item client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was good in both groups, but scores were significantly higher in the Beacon model group than the usual care group (mean [SD] 28.4 [4.9] vs 25.6 [4.9], respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, a model of integrated care delivered in the community by GPs with a special interest can safely achieve clinical outcomes that are not inferior to those achieved with gold-standard hospital-based specialist outpatient clinics. Individuals receiving care in the community had greater satisfaction. Further studies will determine the cost of delivering this model of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000380897 FUNDING: The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1001157).

Establishing a new model of integrated primary and secondary care based around general practice: a case study of lessons learned and challenges.

This case study describes the development and implementation of an innovative integrated primary-secondary model of care for people with complex diabetes. The aim of the paper is to present the experiences of clinicians and researchers involved in implementing the 'Beacon' model by providing a discussion of the contextual factors, including lessons learned, challenges and solutions. Beacon-type models of community care for people with chronic disease are well placed to deliver on Australia's health care reform agenda, and this commentary provides rich contextual information relevant to the translation of such models into policy and practice.

Impact of a general practitioner-led integrated model of care on the cost of potentially preventable diabetes-related hospitalisations.

AIM: To estimate potential savings for Australia's health care system through the implementation of an innovative Beacon model of care for patients with complex diabetes. METHODS: A prospective controlled trial was conducted comparing a multidisciplinary, community-based, integrated primary-secondary care diabetes service with usual care at a hospital diabetes outpatient clinic. We extracted patient hospitalisation data from the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection and used Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups to assign costs to potentially preventable hospitalisations for diabetes. RESULTS: 327 patients with complex diabetes referred by their general practitioner for specialist outpatient care were included in the analysis. The integrated model of care had potential for national cost savings of $132.5 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in hospitalisations attributable to better integrated primary/secondary care can yield large cost savings. Models such as the Beacon are highly relevant to current national health care reform initiatives to improve the continuity and efficiency of care for those with complex chronic disease in primary care.

A qualitative follow-up study of diabetes patients' appraisal of an integrated diabetes service in primary care.

As the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to escalate, health system reform is seeking better patient outcomes through new models of care that aim to provide the most appropriate care when needed. Patients' experiences of service innovations can shed light on the successes and challenges of implementing change. This paper explores patients' views of a new model of integrated care for patients with type 2 diabetes. A mixed-methods, randomised control trial evaluated a beacon clinic model of care for complex type 2 diabetes led by specialist general practitioners (GPs) in primary care settings in Brisbane, Australia. In this qualitative sub-study conducted between May 2014 and January 2015, 25 consenting participants were re-interviewed after 12 months using semi-structured questions, to explore their experiences of the new model of care. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. In the first theme, Organised for patient-centred care, patients appraised the structural elements of the clinic. For most, it was an enabling experience which included convenience, flexibility and prompt communication back to the referring GPs. The preferences of a minority were partly realised, as they tried to understand the clinical purpose in comparison with traditional care. The second theme, Positioned as partners in care, revealed the pivotal role of patient-clinician relationships in patients' engagement with advice and self-care. Most found clinicians' collaborative approach engaging and motivating. A small minority with contextual concerns were disappointed with the focus on diabetes and struggled to engage fully with the model. Most participants valued this model of care, which reflects a capacity to manage the variable and complex needs of most patients referred for care. However, multi-level strategies are also needed to enhance patients' engagement with care and the sustainability of integrated diabetes care.

The work of local healthcare innovation: a qualitative study of GP-led integrated diabetes care in primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Service delivery innovation is at the heart of efforts to combat the growing burden of chronic disease and escalating healthcare expenditure. Small-scale, locally-led service delivery innovation is a valuable source of learning about the complexities of change and the actions of local change agents. This exploratory qualitative study captures the perspectives of clinicians and managers involved in a general practitioner-led integrated diabetes care innovation. METHODS: Data on these change agents' perspectives on the local innovation and how it works in the local context were collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews at two primary health care sites. Transcribed data were analysed thematically. Normalization Process Theory provided a framework to explore perspectives on the individual and collective work involved in putting the innovation into practice in local service delivery contexts. RESULTS: Twelve primary health care clinicians, hospital-based medical specialists and practice managers participated in the study, which represented the majority involved in the innovation at the two sites. The thematic analysis highlighted three main themes of local innovation work: 1) trusting and embedding new professional relationships; 2) synchronizing services and resources; and 3) reconciling realities of innovation work. As a whole, the findings show that while locally-led service delivery innovation is designed to respond to local problems, convincing others to trust change and managing the boundary tensions is core to local work, particularly when it challenges taken-for-granted practices and relationships. Despite this, the findings also show that local innovators can and do act in both discretionary and creative ways to progress the innovation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Normalization Process Theory uncovered some critical professional, organizational and structural factors early in the progression of the innovation. The key to local service delivery innovation lies in building coalitions of trust at the point of service delivery and persuading organizational and institutional mindsets to consider the opportunities of locally-led innovation.

Systematic review of integrated models of health care delivered at the primary-secondary interface: how effective is it and what determines effectiveness?

Integrated multidisciplinary care is difficult to achieve between specialist clinical services and primary care practitioners, but should improve outcomes for patients with chronic and/or complex chronic physical diseases. This systematic review identifies outcomes of different models that integrate specialist and primary care practitioners, and characteristics of models that delivered favourable clinical outcomes. For quality appraisal, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used. Data are presented as a narrative synthesis due to marked heterogeneity in study outcomes. Ten studies were included. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Despite few improvements in clinical outcomes, significant improvements were reported in process outcomes regarding disease control and service delivery. No study reported negative effects compared with usual care. Economic outcomes showed modest increases in costs of integrated primary-secondary care. Six elements were identified that were common to these models of integrated primary-secondary care: (1) interdisciplinary teamwork; (2) communication/information exchange; (3) shared care guidelines or pathways; (4) training and education; (5) access and acceptability for patients; and (6) a viable funding model. Compared with usual care, integrated primary-secondary care can improve elements of disease control and service delivery at a modestly increased cost, although the impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Future trials of integrated care should incorporate design elements likely to maximise effectiveness.

A new model of integrated primary-secondary care for complex diabetes in the community: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A new model of complex diabetes care is provided by a multidisciplinary team which incorporates general practitioner (GP) Clinical Fellows supported by an Endocrinologist and diabetes educator within a community-based general practice setting. This study evaluates the health and clinical benefits of the new model of care, assesses the acceptability of the model to patients, GPs and other health professionals, and examines the cost-effectiveness of the model. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is an open, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial with data collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Participants are identified from new patients on hospital-based diabetes outpatient clinic waiting lists and new GP referrals. Eligible consenting patients are randomised to either a community practice site (intervention) or a hospital site (usual care). In the intervention model, medical care is led by a GP Clinical Fellow in partnership with an Endocrinologist. Quantitative measures include clinical indicators with HbA1c as the primary outcome; patient-reported outcomes include health-related quality of life, mental health and satisfaction with care. Qualitative methods will be used to explore the perspectives and experiences of patients and providers regarding the new model of care. An economic evaluation will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: This model of care seeks to improve the quality and safety of healthcare at the interface between the hospital and primary care sectors for patients with complex diabetes. The study will provide empirical evidence about the impact of the model of care on health outcomes, patient and clinician satisfaction, as well as any economic impacts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12612000380897.

Patterns and Determinants of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practitioner Use among Adults with Diabetes in Queensland, Australia.

There is evidence that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among people with diabetes. The role of CAM in the treatment or management of diabetes is an emerging health issue given the potential side effects and benefits associated with the use of this kind of medicine. This paper examined patterns and determinants of CAM practitioner use in Queensland, Australia, using a large population-based sample of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The study found that within a 12-month period, 7.7% of people with diabetes used the services of CAM practitioners alongside or as a complement to conventional health care service. Younger age, female gender, a higher education, having private health insurance, and engagement in preventive health behaviours are significant predictors of individuals who are more likely to visit a CAM practitioner. There was no significant difference in CAM practitioner use between people with type 1, type 2 insulin requiring, or type 2 noninsulin requiring diabetes. The findings highlight the need for further research on the role of CAM in the prevention and management of diabetes.

Living with diabetes: rationale, study design and baseline characteristics for an Australian prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a major global public health threat. In Australia, as elsewhere, it is responsible for a sizeable portion of the overall burden of disease, and significant costs. The psychological and social impact of diabetes on individuals with the disease can be severe, and if not adequately addressed, can lead to the worsening of the overall disease picture. The Living With Diabetes Study aims to contribute to a holistic understanding of the psychological and social aspects of diabetes mellitus. METHODS/DESIGN: The Living With Diabetes Study is a 5-year prospective cohort study, based in Queensland, Australia. The first wave of data, which was collected via a mailed self-report survey, was gathered in 2008, with annual collections thereafter. Measurements include: demographic, lifestyle, health and disease characteristics; quality of life (EQ-5D, ADDQoL); emotional well-being (CES-D, LOT-R, ESSI); disease self-management (PAM); and health-care utilisation and patient-assessed quality of care (PACIC). 29% of the 14,439 adults who were invited to participate in the study agreed to do so, yielding a sample size of 3,951 people. DISCUSSION: The data collected by the Living With Diabetes Study provides a good representation of Australians with diabetes to follow over time in order to better understand the natural course of the illness. The study has potential to further illuminate, and give a comprehensive picture of the psychosocial implications of living with diabetes. Data collection is ongoing.

Integrated versus non-integrated management and care for clients with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders: a qualitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a qualitative review of randomised controlled trials in relation to the treatment of adults with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD). In particular, integrated approaches are compared with non-integrated approaches to treatment. Ten articles were identified for inclusion in the review. The findings are equivocal with regard to the superior efficacy of integrated approaches to treatment, although the many limitations of the studies need to be considered in our understanding of this finding. Clearly, this is an extremely challenging client group to engage and maintain in intervention research, and the complexity and variability of the problems render control particularly difficult. The lack of available evidence to support the superiority of integration is discussed in relation to these challenges. Much remains to be investigated with regard to integrated management and care for people with co-occurring and MH/SUD, particularly for specific combinations of dual diagnosis and giving consideration to the level of inter-relatedness between the disorders.