Case management is a cost-effective strategy for coordinating chronic illness care. However, research showing how case management affects health care is mixed. This study systematically synthesizes and critically evaluates evidence in systematic reviews of health care utilization outcomes from case management interventions for the care of chronic illnesses. Results are synthesized from seven English language systematic reviews published between January 1990 and June 2017. Hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, institutionalization, emergency department visits, and hospitals/primary care visits were all identified as health care utilization outcomes of case management interventions. There was evidence that these interventions positively reduced health care utilization; however, results were mixed. These results and the implications of this review of reviews may be valuable for clinical practitioners, health care researchers, and policymakers.
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of integrated care interventions in reducing hospital activity.
DESIGN: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
SETTING: Interventions must have delivered care crossing the boundary between at least two health and/or social care settings.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with one or more chronic diseases.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (HTA database, DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), EPPI-Centre, TRIP, HEED, manual screening of references.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Any measure of hospital admission or readmission, length of stay (LoS), accident and emergency use, healthcare costs.
RESULTS: 50 reviews were included. Interventions focused on case management (n=8), chronic care model (CCM) (n=9), discharge management (n=15), complex interventions (n=3), multidisciplinary teams (MDT) (n=10) and self-management (n=5). 29 reviews reported statistically significant improvements in at least one outcome. 11/21 reviews reported significantly reduced emergency admissions (15-50%); 11/24 showed significant reductions in all-cause (10-30%) or condition-specific (15-50%) readmissions; 9/16 reported LoS reductions of 1-7 days and 4/9 showed significantly lower A&E use (30-40%). 10/25 reviews reported significant cost reductions but provided little robust evidence. Effective interventions included discharge management with postdischarge support, MDT care with teams that include condition-specific expertise, specialist nurses and/or pharmacists and self-management as an adjunct to broader interventions. Interventions were most effective when targeting single conditions such as heart failure, and when care was provided in patients' homes.
CONCLUSIONS: Although all outcomes showed some significant reductions, and a number of potentially effective interventions were found, interventions rarely demonstrated unequivocally positive effects. Despite the centrality of integrated care to current policy, questions remain about whether the magnitude of potentially achievable gains is enough to satisfy national targets for reductions in hospital activity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015016458.
Background: The economic impact and ease of measurement of all-cause hospital readmission rates (HRR) have led to the current debate as to whether they are reducible, and whether they should be used as a publicly reported quality indicators of medical care. Objective: To assess the efficacy of broad clinical interventions in preventing HRR of patients with chronic diseases. Method: A meta-review of published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of clinical interventions that have included HRR among the patients' outcomes of interest. Main findings: Meta-analyses of RCTs have consistently found that, in the community, disease management programs significantly reduced HRR in patients with heart failure, coronary heart disease and bronchial asthma, but not in patients with stroke and in unselected patients with chronic disorders. Inhospital interventions, such as discharge planning, pharmacological consultations and multidisciplinary care, and community interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases had an inconsistent effect on HRR. Main study limitation: Despite their economic impact and ease of measurement, HRR are not the most important outcome of patient care, and efforts aimed at their reduction may compromise patients' health by reducing also justified re-admissions. Conclusions: The efficacy of inhospital interventions in reducing HRR is in need of further study. In patients with heart diseases and bronchial asthma, HRR may be considered as a publicly reported quality indicator of community care, provided that future research confirms that efforts to reduce HRR do not adversely affect other patients' outcomes, such as mortality, functional capacity and quality of life. Future research should also focus on the reasons for the higher efficacy of community interventions in patients with heart diseases and bronchial asthma than in those with other chronic diseases.
Case management is a cost-effective strategy for coordinating chronic illness care. However, research showing how case management affects health care is mixed. This study systematically synthesizes and critically evaluates evidence in systematic reviews of health care utilization outcomes from case management interventions for the care of chronic illnesses. Results are synthesized from seven English language systematic reviews published between January 1990 and June 2017. Hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, institutionalization, emergency department visits, and hospitals/primary care visits were all identified as health care utilization outcomes of case management interventions. There was evidence that these interventions positively reduced health care utilization; however, results were mixed. These results and the implications of this review of reviews may be valuable for clinical practitioners, health care researchers, and policymakers.
