Use of the Stages of Change transtheoretical model in end-of-life planning conversations.

Reports in the end-of-life literature reveal that patients and health care professionals, including social workers, nurses, and physicians, avoid discussions about preparation for such care. End-of-life care discussion barriers include, but are not limited to, professionals feeling unprepared to have the discussions and patients' lack of readiness to discuss planning for this care. Another barrier is the lack of a structured framework to initiate these discussions, especially with clients with advanced illnesses who may not acknowledge that they are at high risk for needing end-of-life care in the future. In a controlled trial of an Advanced Illness Coordinated Care Program, social workers initiated end-of-life planning discussions using the Stages of Change model (SOC). This article describes how the social workers introduced end-of-life planning discussions using the SOC conceptual structure to illustrate the application of a conceptual framework for professionals working with advanced illness populations.

Rapid spread of complex change: a case study in inpatient palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Based on positive findings from a randomized controlled trial, Kaiser Permanente's national executive leadership group set an expectation that all Kaiser Permanente and partner hospitals would implement a consultative model of interdisciplinary, inpatient-based palliative care (IPC). Within one year, the number of IPC consultations program-wide increased almost tenfold from baseline, and the number of teams nearly doubled. We report here results from a qualitative evaluation of the IPC initiative after a year of implementation; our purpose was to understand factors supporting or impeding the rapid and consistent spread of a complex program. METHODS: Quality improvement study using a case study design and qualitative analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews with 36 national, regional, and local leaders. RESULTS: Compelling evidence of impacts on patient satisfaction and quality of care generated 'pull' among adopters, expressed as a remarkably high degree of conviction about the value of the model. Broad leadership agreement gave rise to sponsorship and support that permeated the organization. A robust social network promoted knowledge exchange and built on an existing network with a strong interest in palliative care. Resource constraints, pre-existing programs of a different model, and ambiguous accountability for implementation impeded spread. CONCLUSIONS: A complex, hospital-based, interdisciplinary intervention in a large health care organization spread rapidly due to a synergy between organizational 'push' strategies and grassroots-level pull. The combination of push and pull may be especially important when the organizational context or the practice to be spread is complex.

Effectiveness of care coordination and health counseling in advancing illness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Advanced Illness Coordinated Care Program (hereafter AICCP) for effects on health delivery among patients and caregivers, quality of life, advance planning, and health service utilization. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective trial involving 532 patients and 185 caregivers. AICCP consisted of care coordination, health counseling, and education delivered in cooperation with physicians. METHODS: Patients with advanced disease and their caregivers were assigned to AICCP or usual care (UC). Data sources included self-report, medical record review, and health plan databases. Statistical analyses used t test, chi(2) test, regression analysis, and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Compared with those in UC, AICCP participants had improved communication and care concerning symptoms (P = .02), support in understanding and coping with their illness (P = .01), advance planning (P <.001), support in managing family decision making (P = .002), and help in accessing spiritual support (P <.001). AICCP caregivers received more attention for emotional and spiritual needs (P = .02). AICCP participants were 2.23 times more likely to formulate an advance directive (P <.001) (5.5 months sooner [P <.001]) and were 1.26 times more likely to agree to a do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate order (P = .04). AICCP participants had on average 1.89 fewer inpatient admissions (P = .045). There was no difference in 1-year survival (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: AICCP improved communication and care delivery, advance planning, and do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate orders in a population at risk to use them. AICCP had fewer admissions. Coordination and health counseling seem matched for those coping with advancing illness.

Impact of an inpatient palliative care team: a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care improves care and reduces costs for hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. There have been no multicenter randomized trials examining impact on patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and subsequent health care costs. OBJECTIVE: Measure the impact of an interdisciplinary palliative care service (IPCS) on patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and cost of care for 6 months posthospital discharge. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. IPCS provided consultative, interdisciplinary, palliative care to intervention patients. Controls received usual hospital care (UC). SETTING AND SAMPLE: Five hundred seventeen patients with life-limiting illnesses from a hospital in Denver, Portland, and San Francisco enrolled June 2002 to December 2003. MEASURES: Modified City of Hope Patient Questionnaire, total health care costs, hospice utilization, and survival. RESULTS: IPCS reported higher scores for the Care Experience scale (IPCS: 6.9 versus UC: 6.6, p = 0.04) and for the Doctors, Nurses/Other Care Providers Communication scale (IPCS: 8.3 versus UC: 7.5, p = 0.0004). IPCS patients had fewer intensive care admissions (ICU) on hospital readmission (12 versus 21, p = 0.04), and lower 6-month net cost savings of $4,855 per patient (p = 0.001). IPCS had longer median hospice stays (24 days versus 12 days, p = 0.04). There were no differences in survival or symptom control. CONCLUSIONS: IPCS patients reported greater satisfaction with their care experience and providers' communication, had fewer ICU admissions on readmission, and lower total health care costs following hospital discharge.

Long-term cost effects of collaborative care for late-life depression.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term effects on total healthcare costs of the Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) program for late-life depression compared with usual care. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with enrollment from July 1999 through August 2001. The IMPACT trial, conducted in primary care practices in 8 delivery organizations across the United States, enrolled 1801 depressed primary care patients 60 years or older. Data are from the 2 IMPACT sites for which 4-year cost data were available. Trial enrollment across these 2 health maintenance organizations was 551 patients. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 279) or to usual primary care (n = 272). Intervention patients had access to a depression care manager who provided education, behavioral activation, support of antidepressant medication management prescribed by their regular primary care provider, and problem-solving treatment in primary care for up to 12 months. Care managers were supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care provider. The main outcome measures were healthcare costs during 4 years. RESULTS: IMPACT participants had lower mean total healthcare costs ($29 422; 95% confidence interval, $26 479-$32 365) than usual care patients ($32 785; 95% confidence interval, $27 648-$37 921) during 4 years. Results of a bootstrap analysis suggested an 87% probability that the IMPACT program was associated with lower healthcare costs than usual care. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual primary care, the IMPACT program is associated with a high probability of lower total healthcare costs during a 4-year period.

Caring for patients with dementia: how good is the quality of care? Results from three health systems.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the quality of dementia care within one U.S. metropolitan area and to investigate associations between variations in quality and patient, caregiver, and health system characteristics. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred eighty-seven patient-caregiver pairs from three healthcare organizations MEASUREMENTS: Using caregiver surveys and medical record abstraction to assess 18 dementia care processes drawn from existing guidelines, the proportion adherent to each care process was calculated, as well as mean percentages of adherence aggregated within four care dimensions: assessment (6 processes), treatment (6 processes), education and support (3 processes), and safety (3 processes). For each dimension, associations between adherence and patient, caregiver, and health system characteristics were investigated using multivariable models. RESULTS: Adherence ranged from 9% to 79% for the 18 individual care processes; 11 processes had less than 40% adherence. Mean percentage adherence across the four care dimensions was 37% for assessment, 33% for treatment, 52% for education and support, and 21% for safety. Higher comorbidity was associated with greater adherence across all four dimensions, whereas greater caregiver knowledge (in particular, one item) was associated with higher care quality in three of four care dimensions. For selected dimensions, greater adherence was also associated with greater dementia severity and with more geriatrics or neurologist visits. CONCLUSION: In general, dementia care quality has considerable room for improvement. Although greater comorbidity and dementia severity were associated with better quality, caregiver knowledge was the most consistent caregiver characteristic associated with better adherence. These findings offer opportunities for targeting low quality and suggest potential focused interventions.

The effect of a disease management intervention on quality and outcomes of dementia care: a randomized, controlled trial.

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.

Effect of improving depression care on pain and functional outcomes among older adults with arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Depression and arthritis are disabling and common health problems in late life. Depression is also a risk factor for poor health outcomes among arthritis patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether enhancing care for depression improves pain and functional outcomes in older adults with depression and arthritis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preplanned subgroup analyses of Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT), a randomized controlled trial of 1801 depressed older adults (> or =60 years), which was performed at 18 primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states across the United States from July 1999 to August 2001. A total of 1001 (56%) reported coexisting arthritis at baseline. INTERVENTION: Antidepressant medications and/or 6 to 8 sessions of psychotherapy (Problem-Solving Treatment in Primary Care). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression, pain intensity (scale of 0 to 10), interference with daily activities due to arthritis (scale of 0 to 10), general health status, and overall quality-of-life outcomes assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: In addition to reduction in depressive symptoms, the intervention group compared with the usual care group at 12 months had lower mean (SE) scores for pain intensity (5.62 [0.16] vs 6.15 [0.16]; between-group difference, -0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.92 to -0.14; P =.009), interference with daily activities due to arthritis (4.40 [0.18] vs 4.99 [0.17]; between-group difference, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.19; P =.004), and interference with daily activities due to pain (2.92 [0.07] vs 3.17 [0.07]; between-group difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.41 to -0.10; P =.002). Overall health and quality of life were also enhanced among intervention patients relative to control patients at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In a large and diverse population of older adults with arthritis (mostly osteoarthritis) and comorbid depression, benefits of improved depression care extended beyond reduced depressive symptoms and included decreased pain as well as improved functional status and quality of life.

Depression treatment in a sample of 1,801 depressed older adults in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine rates and predictors of lifetime and recent depression treatment in a sample of 1,801 depressed older primary care patients DESIGN: Cross sectional survey data collected from 1999 to 2001 as part of a treatment effectiveness trial. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics belonging to eight organizations in five states. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred one clinic users aged 60 and older who met diagnostic criteria for major depression or dysthymia. MEASUREMENTS: Lifetime depression treatment was defined as ever having received a prescription medication, counseling, or psychotherapy for depression. Potentially effective recent depression treatment was defined as 2 or more months of antidepressant medications or four or more sessions of counseling or psychotherapy for depression in the past 3 months. RESULTS: The mean age +/- standard deviation was 71.2 +/- 7.5; 65% of subjects were women. Twenty-three percent of the sample came from ethnic minority groups (12% were African American, 8% were Latino, and 3% belonged to other ethnic minorities). The median household income was $23,000. Most study participants (83%) reported depressive symptoms for 2 or more years, and most (71%) reported two or more prior depressive episodes. About 65% reported any lifetime depression treatment, and 46% reported some depression treatment in the past 3 months, although only 29% reported potentially effective recent depression treatment. Most of the treatment provided consisted of antidepressant medications, with newer antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors constituting the majority (78%) of antidepressants used. Most participants indicated a preference for counseling or psychotherapy over antidepressant medications, but only 8% had received such treatment in the past 3 months, and only 1% reported four or more sessions of counseling. Men, African Americans, Latinos, those without two or more prior episodes of depression, and those who preferred counseling to antidepressant medications reported significantly lower rates of depression care. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that there is considerable opportunity to improve care for older adults with depression. Particular efforts should be focused on improving access to depression care for older men, African Americans, Latinos, and patients who prefer treatments other than antidepressants.

Impacting late life depression: integrating a depression intervention into primary care.

groups and semi-structured individual interviews with all Depression Clinical Specialists (DCSs) working with Project IMPACT (Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment), a study testing a collaborative care intervention for late life depression, to examine integration of the intervention model into primary care. DCSs described key intervention components, including supervision from a psychiatrist and a liaison primary care provider, weekly team meetings, computerized patient tracking, and outcomes assessment tools as effective in supporting patient care. DCSs discussed details of protocols, training, environmental set-up, and interpersonal factors that seemed to facilitate integration. DCSs also identified research-related factors that may need to be preserved in the real world. Basic elements of the IMPACT model seem to support integration of late life depression care into primary care. Research-related components may need modification for dissemination.

Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Few depressed older adults receive effective treatment in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) collaborative care management program for late-life depression. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with recruitment from July 1999 to August 2001. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1801 patients aged 60 years or older with major depression (17%), dysthymic disorder (30%), or both (53%). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 906) or to usual care (n = 895). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager who was supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care expert and who offered education, care management, and support of antidepressant management by the patient's primary care physician or a brief psychotherapy for depression, Problem Solving Treatment in Primary Care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for depression, depression treatments, satisfaction with care, functional impairment, and quality of life. RESULTS: At 12 months, 45% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline compared with 19% of usual care participants (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-4.38; P<.001). Intervention patients also experienced greater rates of depression treatment (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.34-3.79; P<.001), more satisfaction with depression care (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.66-4.30; P<.001), lower depression severity (range, 0-4; between-group difference, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.33; P<.001), less functional impairment (range, 0-10; between-group difference, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.64; P<.001), and greater quality of life (range, 0-10; between-group difference, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79; P<.001) than participants assigned to the usual care group. CONCLUSION: The IMPACT collaborative care model appears to be feasible and significantly more effective than usual care for depression in a wide range of primary care practices.

Kaiser Permanente's manifesto 2005 demonstration: the promises and limits of devolution.

In 1996, the eight-million member Kaiser Permanente HMO adopted a vision statement that said by 2005 it would expand its services to include home- and community-based services for its members with disabilities. It funded a 3-year, 32-site demonstration that showed that it was feasible to link HMO services with existing home-and community-based (HCB) services and that members appreciated the improved coordination and access. This private-sector project showed that devolution can produce innovative and feasible models of care, but it also showed that without federal financial and regulatory support, such models are unlikely to take hold if they are focused on "unprofitable" populations, for example, those who are chronically ill, poor, and/or disabled.