Making Triage Decisions for the Acute Community Care Program: Paramedics Caring for Urgent Health Problems in Patients' Homes.

The Acute Community Care Program (ACCP) initiative sends specially trained paramedics to evaluate and treat patients with urgent care problems in their residences during evening hours. ACCP safety depends on making appropriate triage decisions from patients' reports during phone calls about whether paramedics could care for patients' urgent needs or whether they require emergency department (ED) services. Furthermore, after ACCP paramedics are on scene, patients may nonetheless need ED care if their urgent health problems are not adequately treated by the paramedic's interventions. To train clinical staff participating in all aspects of ACCP, including these triage decisions, ACCP clinical leaders developed brief vignettes: 27 represented initial ACCP triage decisions and 10 the subsequent decision to send patients to EDs. This report describes findings from an online survey completed by 24 clinical staff involved with ACCP triage. Clinical vignettes could be useful for staff training and quality control in such paramedic initiatives.

Social impact analysis of the effects of a telemedicine intervention to improve diabetes outcomes in an ethnically diverse, medically underserved population: findings from the IDEATel Study.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the social impact of the telemedicine intervention effects in lower- and higher-socioeconomic status (SES) participants in the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care, with blinded outcome evaluation, in 1665 Medicare recipients with diabetes, aged 55 years or older, residing in federally designated medically underserved areas of New York State. The primary trial endpoints were hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure levels. RESULTS: HbA1c was higher in lower-income participants at the baseline examination. However, we found no evidence that the intervention increased disparities. A significant moderator effect was seen for HbA1c (P = .004) and systolic blood pressure (P = .023), with the lowest-income group showing greater intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-SES participants in the IDEATel study benefited at least as much as higher-SES participants from telemedicine nurse case management for diabetes. Tailoring the intensity of the intervention based on clinical need may have led to greater improvements among those not at goal for diabetes control, a group that also had lower income, thereby avoiding the potential for an innovative intervention to widen socioeconomic disparities.

Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of modest non-financial incentives on immunisation rates in children aged 1-3 and to compare it with the effect of only improving the reliability of the supply of services. DESIGN: Clustered randomised controlled study. SETTING: Rural Rajasthan, India. PARTICIPANTS: 1640 children aged 1-3 at end point. INTERVENTIONS: 134 villages were randomised to one of three groups: a once monthly reliable immunisation camp (intervention A; 379 children from 30 villages); a once monthly reliable immunisation camp with small incentives (raw lentils and metal plates for completed immunisation; intervention B; 382 children from 30 villages), or control (no intervention, 860 children in 74 villages). Surveys were undertaken in randomly selected households at baseline and about 18 months after the interventions started (end point). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of children aged 1-3 at the end point who were partially or fully immunised. RESULTS: Among children aged 1-3 in the end point survey, rates of full immunisation were 39% (148/382, 95% confidence interval 30% to 47%) for intervention B villages (reliable immunisation with incentives), 18% (68/379, 11% to 23%) for intervention A villages (reliable immunisation without incentives), and 6% (50/860, 3% to 9%) for control villages. The relative risk of complete immunisation for intervention B versus control was 6.7 (4.5 to 8.8) and for intervention B versus intervention A was 2.2 (1.5 to 2.8). Children in areas neighbouring intervention B villages were also more likely to be fully immunised than those from areas neighbouring intervention A villages (1.9, 1.1 to 2.8). The average cost per immunisation was $56 (2202 rupees) in intervention A and $28 (1102 rupees, about pound16 or euro19) in intervention B. CONCLUSIONS: Improving reliability of services improves immunisation rates, but the effect remains modest. Small incentives have large positive impacts on the uptake of immunisation services in resource poor areas and are more cost effective than purely improving supply. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRSCTN87759937.