BMJ Open Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management

Difference-indifferences analysis

Jonathan Stokes*, Søren Rud Kristensen, Kath Checkland, Peter Bower

*Kontaktforfatter for dette arbejde

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    Resumé

    Objectives: To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). Design: Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individuallevel results by risk score. Setting: Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Participants: At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. Intervention: Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. Direct and indirect outcome measures: Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). Results: At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient nonelective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. Conclusions: The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and costeffectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    Artikelnummere010468
    TidsskriftBMJ Open
    Vol/bind6
    Udgave nummer4
    ISSN2044-6055
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 1. jan. 2016

    Fingeraftryk

    Case Management
    Inpatients
    Patient Admission
    National Health Programs
    Accidents
    Length of Stay
    Emergencies
    Outpatients
    Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
    Population

    Citer dette

    @article{34ba8bfd517e4a0e8d6db74ae3fbf80c,
    title = "BMJ Open Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management: Difference-indifferences analysis",
    abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). Design: Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individuallevel results by risk score. Setting: Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Participants: At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. Intervention: Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. Direct and indirect outcome measures: Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). Results: At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95{\%} CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient nonelective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. Conclusions: The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and costeffectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.",
    author = "Jonathan Stokes and Kristensen, {S{\o}ren Rud} and Kath Checkland and Peter Bower",
    year = "2016",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010468",
    language = "English",
    volume = "6",
    journal = "B M J Open",
    issn = "2044-6055",
    publisher = "BMJ Group",
    number = "4",

    }

    BMJ Open Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management : Difference-indifferences analysis. / Stokes, Jonathan; Kristensen, Søren Rud; Checkland, Kath; Bower, Peter.

    I: BMJ Open, Bind 6, Nr. 4, e010468, 01.01.2016.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - BMJ Open Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management

    T2 - Difference-indifferences analysis

    AU - Stokes, Jonathan

    AU - Kristensen, Søren Rud

    AU - Checkland, Kath

    AU - Bower, Peter

    PY - 2016/1/1

    Y1 - 2016/1/1

    N2 - Objectives: To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). Design: Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individuallevel results by risk score. Setting: Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Participants: At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. Intervention: Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. Direct and indirect outcome measures: Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). Results: At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient nonelective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. Conclusions: The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and costeffectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

    AB - Objectives: To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). Design: Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individuallevel results by risk score. Setting: Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Participants: At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. Intervention: Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. Direct and indirect outcome measures: Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). Results: At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient nonelective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. Conclusions: The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and costeffectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969914930&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010468

    DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010468

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 6

    JO - B M J Open

    JF - B M J Open

    SN - 2044-6055

    IS - 4

    M1 - e010468

    ER -