Development and Validation of Quality Indicators on Continuing Care for Patients With AUD: A Delphi Study.

AIMS: To develop indicators to assess quality of continuing care for persons with alcohol use disorder (AUD). METHODS: A guideline-based RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop and validate indicators regarding the process and outcome of continuing care. We systematically searched for evidence-based guidelines and existing quality indicators. A multidisciplinary expert panel prioritized recommendations using a written questionnaire followed by a group discussion. Important recommendations were then translated to quality indicators. The panel subsequently selected indicators that were measurable and applicable in Belgium. In a final round the indicators face-validity was assessed. RESULTS: We extracted 69 recommendations from 06 guidelines and 17 relevant quality indicators. Of all, 13 indicators remained after 03 written rounds and 02 group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a systematic approach to develop and validate quality indicators for continuing care for AUD. The final set of selected indicators consisted of 10 process and 03 outcome indicators. As the level of evidence of effective continuing care components is very low further development of the indicators is recommended. SHORT SUMMARY: This study describes a systematic approach to develop and validate quality indicators for continuing care for AUD. The proposed set of indicators consisted of 10 process and 03 outcome indicators. As the level of evidence of effective continuing care components is very low further development of the indicators is recommended.

Continuing care for patients with alcohol use disorders: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A chronic care perspective should be adopted in the treatment of patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Initial treatment in a more intense psychiatric care setting should be followed by continuing care. This systematic review aims to identify effective continuing care interventions for patients with AUDs. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to February 2013 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO) to identify RCTs studying continuing care interventions for patients with AUDs. Study selection and quality appraisal was done independently by two reviewers. Drinking and treatment engagement outcomes were considered. Relative risks and mean differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. A statistical pooling of results was planned. RESULTS: 20 trials out of 15,235 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. Only six were evaluated as methodologically strong enough and included for further analysis. Interventions ranged from telephone calls and nurse follow-up to various forms of individual or couples counseling. Four trials suggested that supplementing usual continuing care with an active intervention empowering the patient, could be beneficial to drinking outcomes. Effect sizes were limited and not consistent across all outcomes. Because of heterogeneity in the interventions and outcome measures, a meta-analysis could not be performed. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of a disease with such devastating consequences, it is remarkable how few high quality studies are available. Adding an active intervention to usual continuing care seems to improve treatment outcomes. We propose an integrated care program with different elements from the selected studies and discuss implications for further research.