ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
Comparative Effectiveness of a Complex Care Program for High-Cost/High-Need Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying High-Cost, High-Need Patients in a Network of Community Hospitals.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-cost/high-need (HCHN) adults and the healthcare systems that provide their care may benefit from a new patient-centered model of care involving a dedicated physician and nurse team who coordinate both clinical and social services for a small patient panel.
objectiveEvaluate the impact of a Complex Care Program (CCP) on likelihood of patient survival and hospital admission in 180 days following empanelment to the CCP.
designRetrospective cohort study using a quasi-experimental design with CCP patients propensity score matched to a concurrent control group of eligible but unempaneled patients.
settingKaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS) during 2017-2018.
participantsNine hundred twenty-nine CCP patients empaneled January 2017-June 2018, 929 matched control patients for the same period.
interventionsThe KPMAS CCP is a new program consisting of 8 teams each staffed by a physician and nurse who coordinate care across a continuum of specialty care, tertiary care, and community services for a panel of 200 patients with advanced clinical disease and recent hospitalizations. MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to death and time to first hospital admission in the 180 days following empanelment or eligibility.
resultsCompared to matched control patients, CCP patients had prolonged time to death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.577, 95% CI: 0.474, 0.704), and CCP decedents had longer survival (median days 69.5 vs. 53.0, p=0.03). CCP patients had similar time to hospital admission (HR: 1.081, 95% CI: 0.930, 1.258), with similar results when adjusting for competing risk of death (HR: 1.062, 95% CI: 0.914, 1.084). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized intervention; single healthcare system; patient eligibility limited to specific conditions.
conclusionThe KPMAS CCP was associated with significantly reduced short-term mortality risk for eligible patients who volunteered to participate in this intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.