Nurse and Social Worker Palliative Telecare Team and Quality of Life in Patients With COPD, Heart Failure, or Interstitial Lung Disease: The ADAPT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), and interstitial lung disease (ILD) endure poor quality of life despite conventional therapy. Palliative care approaches may benefit this population prior to end of life. Objective: Determine the effect of a nurse and social worker palliative telecare team on quality of life in outpatients with COPD, HF, or ILD compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-blind, 2-group, multisite randomized clinical trial with accrual between October 27, 2016, and April 2, 2020, in 2 Veterans Administration health care systems (Colorado and Washington), and including community-based outpatient clinics. Outpatients with COPD, HF, or ILD at high risk of hospitalization or death who reported poor quality of life participated. Intervention: The intervention involved 6 phone calls with a nurse to help with symptom management and 6 phone calls with a social worker to provide psychosocial care. The nurse and social worker met weekly with a study primary care and palliative care physician and as needed, a pulmonologist, and cardiologist. Usual care included an educational handout developed for the study that outlined self-care for COPD, ILD, or HF. Patients in both groups received care at the discretion of their clinicians, which could include care from nurses and social workers, and specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, palliative care, and mental health. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was difference in change in quality of life from baseline to 6 months between the intervention and usual care groups (FACT-G score range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life, clinically meaningful change ≥4 points). Secondary quality-of-life outcomes at 6 months included disease-specific health status (Clinical COPD Questionnaire; Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) symptoms. Results: Among 306 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [7.7] years; 276 male [90.2%], 30 female [9.8%]; 245 White [80.1%]), 177 (57.8%) had COPD, 67 (21.9%) HF, 49 (16%) both COPD and HF, and 13 (4.2%) ILD. Baseline FACT-G scores were similar (intervention, 52.9; usual care, 52.7). FACT-G completion was 76% (intervention, 117 of 154; usual care, 116 of 152) at 6 months for both groups. Mean (SD) length of intervention was 115.1 (33.4) days and included a mean of 10.4 (3.3) intervention calls per patient. In the intervention group, 112 of 154 (73%) patients received the intervention as randomized. At 6 months, mean FACT-G score improved 6.0 points in the intervention group and 1.4 points in the usual care group (difference, 4.6 points [95% CI, 1.8-7.4]; P = .001; standardized mean difference, 0.41). The intervention also improved COPD health status (standardized mean difference, 0.44; P = .04), HF health status (standardized mean difference, 0.41; P = .01), depression (standardized mean difference, -0.50; P < .001), and anxiety (standardized mean difference, -0.51; P < .001) at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: For adults with COPD, HF, or ILD who were at high risk of death and had poor quality of life, a nurse and social worker palliative telecare team produced clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life at 6 months compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02713347.

Effect of a Collaborative Care Intervention vs Usual Care on Health Status of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The CASA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with chronic heart failure experience reduced health status despite receiving conventional therapy. Objective: To determine whether a symptom and psychosocial collaborative care intervention improves heart failure-specific health status, depression, and symptom burden in patients with heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single-blind, 2-arm, multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted at Veterans Affairs, academic, and safety-net health systems in Colorado among outpatients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced health status recruited between August 2012 and April 2015. Data from all participants were included regardless of level of participation, using an intent-to-treat approach. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) intervention or usual care. The CASA intervention included collaborative symptom care provided by a nurse and psychosocial care provided by a social worker, both of whom worked with the patients' primary care clinicians and were supervised by a study primary care clinician, cardiologist, and palliative care physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported heart failure-specific health status, measured by difference in change scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (range, 0-100) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included depression (measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire), overall symptom distress (measured by the General Symptom Distress Scale), specific symptoms (pain, fatigue, and shortness of breath), number of hospitalizations, and mortality. Results: Of 314 patients randomized (157 to intervention arm and 157 to control arm), there were 67 women and 247 men, mean (SD) age was 65.5 (11.4) years, and 178 (56.7%) had reduced ejection fraction. At 6 months, the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improved 5.5 points in the intervention arm and 2.9 points in the control arm (difference, 2.6; 95% CI, -1.3 to 6.6; P = .19). Among secondary outcomes, depressive symptoms and fatigue improved at 6 months with CASA (effect size of -0.29 [95% CI, -0.53 to -0.04] for depressive symptoms and -0.30 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.06] for fatigue; P = .02 for both). There were no significant changes in overall symptom distress, pain, shortness of breath, or number of hospitalizations. Mortality at 12 months was similar in both arms (10 patients died receiving CASA, and 13 patients died receiving usual care; P = .52). Conclusions and Relevance: This multisite randomized clinical trial of the CASA intervention did not demonstrate improved heart failure-specific health status. Secondary outcomes of depression and fatigue, both difficult symptoms to treat in heart failure, improved. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739686.

Rationale and study design of a patient-centered intervention to improve health status in chronic heart failure: The Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) randomized trial.

While contemporary heart failure management has led to some improvements in morbidity and mortality, patients continue to report poor health status (i.e., burdensome symptoms, impaired function, and poor quality of life). The Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) trial is a NIH-funded, three-site, randomized clinical trial that examines the effect of the CASA intervention compared to usual care on the primary outcome of patient-reported health status at 6months in patients with heart failure and poor health status. The CASA intervention involves a nurse who works with patients to treat symptoms (e.g., shortness of breath, fatigue, pain) using disease-specific and palliative approaches, and a social worker who provides psychosocial care targeting depression and adjustment to illness. The intervention uses a collaborative care team model of health care delivery and is structured and primarily phone-based to enhance reproducibility and scalability. This article describes the rationale and design of the CASA trial, including several decision points: (1) how to design a patient-centered intervention to improve health status; (2) how to structure the intervention so that it is reproducible and scalable; and (3) how to systematically identify outpatients with heart failure most likely to need and benefit from the intervention. The results should provide valuable information to providers and health systems about the use of team care to manage symptoms and provide psychosocial care in chronic illness.

Primary Results of the Patient-Centered Disease Management (PCDM) for Heart Failure Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Heart failure (HF) has a major effect on patients' health status, including their symptom burden, functional status, and health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a collaborative care patient-centered disease management (PCDM) intervention to improve the health status of patients with HF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Patient-Centered Disease Management (PCDM) trial was a multisite randomized clinical trial comparing a collaborative care PCDM intervention with usual care in patients with HF. A population-based sample of 392 patients with an HF diagnosis from 4 Veterans Affairs centers who had a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score of less than 60 (heavy symptom burden and impaired functional status and quality of life) were enrolled between May 2009 and June 2011. INTERVENTIONS: The PCDM intervention included collaborative care by a multidisciplinary care team consisting of a nurse coordinator, cardiologist, psychiatrist, and primary care physician; home telemonitoring and patient self-management support; and screening and treatment for comorbid depression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the KCCQ overall summary score at 1 year (a 5-point change is clinically significant). Mortality, hospitalization, and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire 9) were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients randomized to the PCDM intervention (n=187) vs usual care (n=197); baseline mean KCCQ overall summary scores were 37.9 vs 36.9 (P=.48). There was significant improvement in the KCCQ overall summary scores in both groups after 1 year (mean change, 13.5 points in each group), with no significant difference between groups (P=.97). The intervention was not associated with greater improvement in the KCCQ overall summary scores when the effect over time was estimated using 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month data (P=.74). Among secondary outcomes, there were significantly fewer deaths at 1 year in the intervention arm (8 of 187 [4.3%]) than in the usual care arm (19 of 197 [9.6%]) (P = .04). Among those who screened positive for depression, there was a greater improvement in the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 scores after 1 year in the intervention arm than in the usual care arm (2.1 points lower, P=.01). There was no significant difference in 1-year hospitalization rates between the intervention arm and the usual care arm (29.4% vs 29.9%, P=.87). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This multisite randomized trial of a multifaceted HF PCDM intervention did not demonstrate improved patient health status compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00461513.

Feasibility and acceptability of a collaborative care intervention to improve symptoms and quality of life in chronic heart failure: mixed methods pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic heart failure (HF) suffer from numerous symptoms that worsen quality of life. The CASA (Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness) intervention was designed to improve symptoms and quality of life by integrating palliative and psychosocial care into chronic care. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of CASA and identify necessary improvements. METHODS: We conducted a prospective mixed-methods pilot trial. The CASA intervention included (1) nurse phone visits involving structured symptom assessments and guidelines to alleviate breathlessness, fatigue, pain, or depression; (2) structured phone counseling targeting adjustment to illness and depression if present; and (3) weekly team meetings with a palliative care specialist, cardiologist, and primary care physician focused on medical recommendations to primary care providers (PCPs, physician or nurse practioners) to improve symptoms. Study subjects were outpatients with chronic HF from a Veteran's Affairs hospital (n=15) and a university hospital (n=2). Measurements included feasibility (cohort retention rate, medical recommendation implementation rate, missing data, quality of care) and acceptability (an end-of-study semi-structured participant interview). RESULTS: Participants were male with a median age of 63 years. One withdrew early and there were <5% missing data. Overall, 85% of 87 collaborative care team medical recommendations were implemented. All participants who screened positive for depression were either treated for depression or thought to not have a depressive disorder. In the qualitative interviews, patients reported a positive experience and provided several constructive critiques. CONCLUSIONS: The CASA intervention was feasible based on participant enrollment, cohort retention, implementation of medical recommendations, minimal missing data, and acceptability. Several intervention changes were made based on participant feedback.

Patient-centered disease management (PCDM) for heart failure: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (HF) disease management programs have reported inconsistent results and have not included comorbid depression management or specifically focused on improving patient-reported outcomes. The Patient Centered Disease Management (PCDM) trial was designed to test the effectiveness of collaborative care disease management in improving health status (symptoms, functioning, and quality of life) in patients with HF who reported poor HF-specific health status. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with a HF diagnosis at four VA Medical Centers were identified through population-based sampling. Patients with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ, a measure of HF-specific health status) score of < 60 (heavy symptom burden and impaired quality of life) were invited to enroll in the PCDM trial. Enrolled patients were randomized to receive usual care or the PCDM intervention, which included: (1) collaborative care management by VA clinicians including a nurse, cardiologist, internist, and psychiatrist, who worked with patients and their primary care providers to provide guideline-concordant care management, (2) home telemonitoring and guided patient self-management support, and (3) screening and treatment for comorbid depression. The primary study outcome is change in overall KCCQ score. Secondary outcomes include depression, medication adherence, guideline-based care, hospitalizations, and mortality. DISCUSSION: The PCDM trial builds on previous studies of HF disease management by prioritizing patient health status, implementing a collaborative care model of health care delivery, and addressing depression, a key barrier to optimal disease management. The study has been designed as an 'effectiveness trial' to support broader implementation in the healthcare system if it is successful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifier: NCT00461513.

Collaborative care intervention for stable ischemic heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that collaborative models of care enhance communication among primary care providers, improving quality of care and outcomes for patients with chronic conditions. We sought to determine whether a multifaceted intervention that used a collaborative care model and was directed through primary care providers would improve symptoms of angina, self-perceived health, and concordance with practice guidelines for managing chronic stable angina. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial, cluster randomized by provider, involving patients with symptomatic ischemic heart disease recruited from primary care clinics at 4 academically affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs health care systems. Primary end points were changes over 12 months in symptoms on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, self-perceived health, and concordance with practice guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 183 primary care providers and 703 patients participated in the study. Providers accepted and implemented 91.6% of 701 recommendations made by collaborative care teams. Almost half were related to medications, including adjustments to ß-blockers, long-acting nitrates, and statins. The intervention did not significantly improve symptoms of angina or self-perceived health, although end points favored collaborative care for 10 of 13 prespecified measures. While concordance with practice guidelines improved 4.5% more among patients receiving collaborative care than among those receiving usual care (P < .01), this was mainly because of increased use of diagnostic testing rather than increased use of recommended medications. CONCLUSION: A collaborative care intervention was well accepted by primary care providers and modestly improved receipt of guideline-concordant care but not symptoms or self-perceived health in patients with stable angina.