Aim This systematic review synthesizes recent evidence of the effectiveness of case management in reducing hospital use by individuals with chronic illnesses. Background Hospital use by individuals with chronic illnesses accounts for 66% of healthcare costs in the United States. its has been cited as care coordination that can reduce healthcare costs; however, its effectiveness in improving hospital use outcomes is contradictory, and no review has yet synthesized recent studies of case management with respect to hospital use outcomes. Methods This systematic review followed the Cochrane processes and was guided by use of PRISMA statements. Five electronic databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials published within the last 10 years that evaluated case management hospital use as a primary outcome by individuals with chronic illnesses. Results Ten studies published between 2007 and 2015 were retrieved and assessed for risk of methodological bias. All studies used case management as an intervention, focused on transitional care services and reported hospital use, including readmissions and emergency department and hospital visits, as a primary outcome. Analysis of the studies showed that case management greatly reduced hospital readmissions and emergency department visits. Limitations Only studies published in English were searched, and retrieved studies tended to report positive results. Conclusions There was strong evidence of significant reductions in hospital use with case management as an intervention. However, other results about the efffectiveness of case management remain mixed; more rigorously designed studies with case management interventions are needed. Implications for nursing and health policy The complexity and cost of chronic illnesses means that case management should be considered as a tool to improve quality of care and lower healthcare costs.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (non-RCTs, NRCTs) is to investigate the effectiveness and related costs of case management (CM) for patients with heart failure (HF) predominantly based in the community in reducing unplanned readmissions and length of stay (LOS).
SETTING: CM initiated either while as an inpatient, or on discharge from acute care hospitals, or in the community and then continuing on in the community.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a diagnosis of HF and resident in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
INTERVENTION: CM based on nurse coordinated multicomponent care which is applicable to the primary care-based health systems.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes of interest were unplanned (re)admissions, LOS and any related cost data. Secondary outcomes were primary healthcare resources.
RESULTS: 22 studies were included: 17 RCTs and 5 NRCTs. 17 studies described hospital-initiated CM (n=4794) and 5 described community-initiated CM of HF (n=3832). Hospital-initiated CM reduced readmissions (rate ratio 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.92), p=0.008) and LOS (mean difference -1.28 days (95% CI -2.04 to -0.52), p=0.001) in favour of CM compared with usual care. 9 trials described cost data of which 6 reported no difference between CM and usual care. There were 4 studies of community-initiated CM versus usual care (2 RCTs and 2 NRCTs) with only the 2 NRCTs showing a reduction in admissions.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-initiated CM can be successful in reducing unplanned hospital readmissions for HF and length of hospital stay for people with HF. 9 trials described cost data; no clear difference emerged between CM and usual care. There was limited evidence for community-initiated CM which suggested it does not reduce admission.
BACKGROUND: Over 35 million people are estimated to be living with dementia in the world and the societal costs are very high. Case management is a widely used and strongly promoted complex intervention for organising and co-ordinating care at the level of the individual, with the aim of providing long-term care for people with dementia in the community as an alternative to early admission to a care home or hospital.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of case management approaches to home support for people with dementia, from the perspective of the different people involved (patients, carers, and staff) compared with other forms of treatment, including ‘treatment as usual’, standard community treatment and other non-case management interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 31 December 2013: ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group,The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Social Science Citation Index), Campbell Collaboration/SORO database and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We updated this search in March 2014 but results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of case management interventions for people with dementia living in the community and their carers. We screened interventions to ensure that they focused on planning and co-ordination of care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as required by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently extracted data and made 'Risk of bias' assessments using Cochrane criteria. For continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) between groups along with its confidence interval (95% CI). We applied a fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. For binary or dichotomous data, we generated the corresponding odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity by the I² statistic.
MAIN RESULTS: We include 13 RCTs involving 9615 participants with dementia in the review. Case management interventions in studies varied. We found low to moderate overall risk of bias; 69% of studies were at high risk for performance bias.
The case management group were significantly less likely to be institutionalised (admissions to residential or nursing homes) at six months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, n = 5741, 6 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.02) and at 18 months (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.61, n = 363, 4 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.003). However, the effects at 10 - 12 months (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08, n = 5990, 9 RCTs, I² = 48%, P = 0.39) and 24 months (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.03, n = 201, 2 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.94) were uncertain. There was evidence from one trial of a reduction in the number of days per month in a residential home or hospital unit in the case management group at six months (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.93 to -3.67, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001) and at 12 months (MD -7.70, 95% CI -9.38 to -6.02, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001). One trial reported the length of time until participants were institutionalised at 12 months and the effects were uncertain (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.14, P = 0.14). There was no difference in the number of people admitted to hospital at six (4 RCTs, 439 participants), 12 (5 RCTs, 585 participants) and 18 months (5 RCTs, 613 participants). For mortality at 4 - 6, 12, 18 - 24 and 36 months, and for participants' or carers' quality of life at 4, 6, 12 and 18 months, there were no significant effects. There was some evidence of benefits in carer burden at six months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01, n = 4601, 4 RCTs, I² = 26%, P = 0.03) but the effects at 12 or 18 months were uncertain. Additionally, some evidence indicated case management was more effective at reducing behaviour disturbance at 18 months (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.07, n = 206, 2 RCTs I² = 0%, P = 0.01) but effects were uncertain at four (2 RCTs), six (4 RCTs) or 12 months (5 RCTs).
The case management group showed a small significant improvement in carer depression at 18 months (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.01, n = 2888, 3 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.03). Conversely, the case management group showed greater improvement in carer well-being in a single study at six months (MD -2.20 CI CI -4.14 to -0.26, n = 65, 1 RCT, P = 0.03) but the effects were uncertain at 12 or 18 months. There was some evidence that case management reduced the total cost of services at 12 months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, n = 5276, 2 RCTs, P = 0.01) and incurred lower dollar expenditure for the total three years (MD= -705.00, 95% CI -1170.31 to -239.69, n = 5170, 1 RCT, P = 0.003). Data on a number of outcomes consistently indicated that the intervention group received significantly more community services.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that case management is beneficial at improving some outcomes at certain time points, both in the person with dementia and in their carer. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the interventions, outcomes measured and time points across the 13 included RCTs. There was some evidence from good-quality studies to suggest that admissions to care homes and overall healthcare costs are reduced in the medium term; however, the results at longer points of follow-up were uncertain. There was not enough evidence to clearly assess whether case management could delay institutionalisation in care homes. There were uncertain results in patient depression, functional abilities and cognition. Further work should be undertaken to investigate what components of case management are associated with improvement in outcomes. Increased consistency in measures of outcome would support future meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Case management (CM) is a commonly cited intervention aimed at reducing Emergency Department (ED) utilization by "frequent users," a group of patients that utilize the ED at disproportionately high rates. Studies have investigated the impact of CM on a variety of outcomes in this patient population.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine the evidence of the effectiveness of the CM model in the frequent ED user patient population. We reviewed the available literature focusing on the impact of CM interventions on ED utilization, cost, disposition, and psychosocial variables in frequent ED users.
DISCUSSION: Although there was heterogeneity across the 12 studies investigating the impact of CM interventions on frequent users of the ED, the majority of available evidence shows a benefit to CM interventions. Reductions in ED visitation and ED costs are supported with the strongest evidence.
CONCLUSION: CM interventions can improve both clinical and social outcomes among frequent ED users.
The growing number of dementia patients leads to both policy, economic and health organization constraints. Many healthcare systems have developed case management programs in order to optimize dementia patients and caregivers care and services delivery. Nevertheless, to what extend case management programs can lead to an improvement of care and expenditures savings is not known. Thus, the objective of this paper was to analyse the efficacy of case management programs on health care cost, institutionalization and hospitalization. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was therefore conducted of the databases MEDLINE and SCOPUS up to September 2009. Included were English language randomized controlled trials of case management for community dwelling dementia patients and their caregivers evaluating costs, institutionalization and hospitalization. An evaluation of the methodological quality was performed. Thirteen relevant studies concerning 12 trials were identified and included. None of the 7 low quality studies reported positive impact of case management on the outcomes of interest. Among the 6 good quality studies, 4 reported positive impact on institutionalization delay, institutionalization length or nursing home admission rate. In none of the good quality studies was evidence found for savings in health care expenditures or reduction in hospitalization recourse. The weak convincing evidences from randomized trials do not allow any conclusion about the efficacy of case management for dementia patient and caregivers on costs and resource utilization. Further research should focus on determining subgroups of caregivers who could benefit the most from case management.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the available literature on the effectiveness of ambulatory nurse-led case management for complex patients in general health care.
METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cinahl. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before/after study, and time series studies; identified references were screened by two reviewers. Two reviewers rated the quality of each article. Data extracted from the selected publications included design, characteristics of the participants, the intervention, type of outcome measures, and results.
RESULTS: We identified 10 relevant publications. Nine studies used readmission rate as primary outcome. Fewer studies investigated duration of hospital readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, functional status, quality of life, or patient satisfaction. In general, results with regard to the effectiveness of case management were conflicting.
CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence that case management has a positive effect on patient satisfaction and no effect on ED visits. It was not possible to draw firm conclusions on the other outcomes.
Aim This systematic review synthesizes recent evidence of the effectiveness of case management in reducing hospital use by individuals with chronic illnesses. Background Hospital use by individuals with chronic illnesses accounts for 66% of healthcare costs in the United States. its has been cited as care coordination that can reduce healthcare costs; however, its effectiveness in improving hospital use outcomes is contradictory, and no review has yet synthesized recent studies of case management with respect to hospital use outcomes. Methods This systematic review followed the Cochrane processes and was guided by use of PRISMA statements. Five electronic databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials published within the last 10 years that evaluated case management hospital use as a primary outcome by individuals with chronic illnesses. Results Ten studies published between 2007 and 2015 were retrieved and assessed for risk of methodological bias. All studies used case management as an intervention, focused on transitional care services and reported hospital use, including readmissions and emergency department and hospital visits, as a primary outcome. Analysis of the studies showed that case management greatly reduced hospital readmissions and emergency department visits. Limitations Only studies published in English were searched, and retrieved studies tended to report positive results. Conclusions There was strong evidence of significant reductions in hospital use with case management as an intervention. However, other results about the efffectiveness of case management remain mixed; more rigorously designed studies with case management interventions are needed. Implications for nursing and health policy The complexity and cost of chronic illnesses means that case management should be considered as a tool to improve quality of care and lower healthcare costs.
