OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent dementia care management program on primary care provider knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of quality of dementia care.
DESIGN: A clinic-level randomized, controlled trial of a comprehensive care management program for patients with dementia and their nonprofessional caregivers. The program included provider education and protocols for care managers to communicate with patients' medical providers.
SETTING: Eighteen clinics (nine intervention, nine [corrected] usual care) in three healthcare systems in San Diego, California.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred thirty-two medical providers; 129 from nine [corrected] intervention clinics; 103 from nine [corrected] usual-care clinics.
MEASUREMENTS: Providers were surveyed 9 months after intervention onset on knowledge (five items on four topics), attitudes about dementia (three items), and perception of quality of dementia care in their practice setting (three items). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate the differences between intervention and usual-care providers, adjusting for covariate effects across groups and clustering by clinic.
RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six of 232 (72%) providers responded. Intervention providers had better knowledge about assessing decision-making capacity than usual-care providers (adjusted difference in percentage correct = 12%; adjusted odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-4.8). Intervention providers viewed dementia patients as more difficult to manage in primary care than usual-care providers (P = .03). There were no other differences in knowledge, attitudes, or care quality perceptions across intervention and usual-care providers.
CONCLUSION: A comprehensive dementia care management model resulted in few differences in provider knowledge or attitudes favorable to dementia care, suggesting that this care model's effects on quality were primarily mediated through other components of the care management program.
BACKGROUND: Adherence to dementia guidelines is poor despite evidence that some guideline recommendations can improve symptoms and delay institutionalization of patients. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a dementia guideline-based disease management program on quality of care and outcomes for patients with dementia. DESIGN: Clinic-level, cluster randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 3 health care organizations collaborating with 3 community agencies in southern California. PARTICIPANTS: 18 primary care clinics and 408 patients with dementia age 65 years or older paired with 408 informal caregivers. INTERVENTION: Disease management program led by care managers and provided to 238 patient-caregiver pairs at 9 intervention clinics for more than 12 months. MEASUREMENTS: Adherence to 23 guideline recommendations (primary outcome) and receipt of community resources and patient and caregiver health and quality-of-care measures (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: The mean percentage of per-patient guideline recommendations to which care was adherent was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (63.9% vs. 32.9%, respectively; adjusted difference, 30.1% [95% CI, 25.2% to 34.9%]; P < 0.001). Participants who received the intervention had higher care quality on 21 of 23 guidelines (P < or = 0.013 for all), and higher proportions received community agency assistance (P < or = 0.03) than those who received usual care. Patient health-related quality of life, overall quality of patient care, caregiving quality, social support, and level of unmet caregiving assistance needs were better for participants in the intervention group than for those in the usual care group (P < 0.05 for all). Caregiver health-related quality of life did not differ between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Participants were well-educated, were predominantly white, had a usual source of care, and were not institutionalized. Generalizability to other patients and geographic regions is unknown. Also, costs of a care management program under fee-for-service reimbursement may impede adoption. CONCLUSIONS: A dementia guideline-based disease management program led to substantial improvements in quality of care for patients with dementia. Current Controlled Trials identifier: ISRCTN72577751.
OBJECTIVES: To identify specific care management activities within a dementia care management intervention that are associated with 18-month change in caregiver mastery and relationship strain.
DESIGN: Exploratory analysis, using secondary data (care management processes and caregiver outcomes) from the intervention arm of a clinic-level randomized, controlled trial of a dementia care management quality improvement program.
SETTING: Nine primary care clinics in three managed care and fee-for-service southern California healthcare organizations.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred thirty-eight pairs: individuals with dementia and their informal, nonprofessional caregivers.
MEASUREMENTS: Care management activity types extracted from an electronic database were used as predictors of caregiver mastery and relationship strain, which were measured through mailed surveys. Multivariable linear regression models were used to predict caregiver mastery and relationship strain.
RESULTS: For each care manager home environment assessment, caregiver mastery increased 4 points (range 0-100, mean+/-standard deviation 57.1+/-26.6, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.4-5.7; P=.001) between baseline and 18 months. For every action linking caregivers to community agencies for nonspecific needs, caregiver mastery decreased 6.2 points (95% CI=-8.5 to -3.9; P<.001). No other care management activities were significantly associated with this outcome, and no specific activities were associated with a change in caregiver relationship strain.
CONCLUSION: Home assessments for specific needs of caregivers and persons with dementia are associated with improvements in caregivers' sense of mastery. Future work is needed to determine whether this increase is sustained over time and decreases the need for institutionalization.
Objective: To calculate intervention costs and the potential cost offset of a care management intervention that substantially improved the quality of dementia care. Study Design: From both a payer perspective and a social planner perspective, we analyzed data from a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating this intervention versus usual care. The RCT included 408 pairs of older adults with dementia and their caregivers. Caregivers were surveyed at baseline, at 12 months, and at 18 months to assess patient healthcare utilization and out-of-pocket costs. Methods: We calculated fixed and per-patient intervention costs from RCT records. We combined the monthly per-patient costs of healthcare services, informal caregiving, and out-of-pocket costs, and we conducted multivariate analyses comparing this sum (potential cost offset) for intervention versus usual care patients. Covariates included patient age, sex, and baseline costs. We limited the main analysis to patients who survived until the 12-month survey or the 18-month survey. Results: The intervention required a start-up cost of $70,256 and mean intervention per-patient permonth costs of $118. There were no significant differences in the mean monthly cost of healthcare and caregiving services for intervention versus usual care patients using the societal perspective (difference of -$555 per month, P = .28) or the payer perspective (difference of -$219 per month [including nursing home costs], P = .55; difference of -$256 per month [excluding nursing home costs], P = .47). Conclusion: Although this analysis of a dementia care management intervention did not demonstrate a significant cost offset, the intervention may represent a worthwhile approach to improving the quality of care and health outcomes for patients with dementia and their caregivers.
To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent dementia care management program on primary care provider knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of quality of dementia care.
DESIGN:
A clinic-level randomized, controlled trial of a comprehensive care management program for patients with dementia and their nonprofessional caregivers. The program included provider education and protocols for care managers to communicate with patients' medical providers.
SETTING:
Eighteen clinics (nine intervention, nine [corrected] usual care) in three healthcare systems in San Diego, California.
PARTICIPANTS:
Two hundred thirty-two medical providers; 129 from nine [corrected] intervention clinics; 103 from nine [corrected] usual-care clinics.
MEASUREMENTS:
Providers were surveyed 9 months after intervention onset on knowledge (five items on four topics), attitudes about dementia (three items), and perception of quality of dementia care in their practice setting (three items). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate the differences between intervention and usual-care providers, adjusting for covariate effects across groups and clustering by clinic.
RESULTS:
One hundred sixty-six of 232 (72%) providers responded. Intervention providers had better knowledge about assessing decision-making capacity than usual-care providers (adjusted difference in percentage correct = 12%; adjusted odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-4.8). Intervention providers viewed dementia patients as more difficult to manage in primary care than usual-care providers (P = .03). There were no other differences in knowledge, attitudes, or care quality perceptions across intervention and usual-care providers.
CONCLUSION:
A comprehensive dementia care management model resulted in few differences in provider knowledge or attitudes favorable to dementia care, suggesting that this care model's effects on quality were primarily mediated through other components of the care management program.
