Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of shared care development for long-term mental illness. The North Dublin randomized controlled trial of structured diabetes shared care. Coordinating and standardizing long-term care: evaluation of the west of Scotland shared-care scheme for hypertension. Patient-held shared care records for individuals with mental illness. Randomised controlled evaluation. Randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a primary health care liaison worker in promoting shared care for opiate users. Multifaceted shared care intervention for late life depression in residential care: randomised controlled trial. Evaluation of a short-term group intervention for informal carers of patients attending a home palliative care service. Randomised controlled trial of effects of coordinating care for terminally ill cancer patients. Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Effectiveness of collaborative care depression treatment in Veterans' Affairs primary care. Randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care model with psychiatric consultation for persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice. Can collaborative care address the needs of low-income Latinas with comorbid depression and cancer? Results from a randomized pilot study. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Randomised trial. Effectiveness of collaborative care in addressing depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of an outreach nursing support program for recently discharged stroke patients. Can a facilitated programme promote effective multidisciplinary audit in secondary care teams? An exploratory trial. Implementing collaborative care for depression treatment in primary care: a cluster randomized evaluation of a quality improvement practice redesign. An outreach intervention to implement evidence based practice in residential care: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN67855475].
Primary care clinicians have a considerable amount of contact with patients suffering from long-term mental illness. The United Kingdom's National Health Service now requires general practices to contribute more systematically to care for this group of patients.
                To determine the effects of Mental Health Link, a facilitation-based quality improvement programme designed to improve communication between the teams and systems of care within general practice. Design of study: Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial.
                Twenty-three urban general practices and associated community mental health teams.
                Practices were randomised to service development as usual or to the Mental Health Link programme. Questionnaires and an audit of notes assessed 335 patients' satisfaction, unmet need, mental health status, processes of mental and physical care, and general practitioners' satisfaction with services and beliefs about service development. Service use and intervention costs were also measured.
                There were no significant differences in patients' perception of their unmet need, satisfaction or general health. Intervention patients had fewer psychiatric relapses than control patients (mean = 0.39 versus 0.71, respectively, P = 0.02) but there were no differences in documented processes of care. Intervention practitioners were more satisfied and services improved significantly for intervention practices. There was an additional mean direct cost of pound 63 per patient with long-term mental illness for the intervention compared with the control.
                Significant differences were seen in relapse rates and practitioner satisfaction. Improvements in service development did not translate into documented improvements in care. This could be explained by the intervention working via the improvements in informal shared care developed through better link working. This type of facilitated intervention tailored to context has the potential to improve care and interface working. A new diabetes shared care service was introduced in North Dublin. It was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a complex intervention comprising education of participating practitioners, the introduction of a community-based diabetes nurse specialist, local agreement on clinical protocols and structured communication across the primary-secondary care interface.
                Our aim was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a structured diabetes shared care service in a mixed health care system and to analyse the impact on total patient care.
                A Cluster randomized controlled trial lasting 18 months was carried out in 183 patients with type 2 diabetes from 30 general practices in North Dublin. Biophysical outcomes (HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index), psychosocial measures (smoking status and Diabetes Clinic Treatment Satisfaction and Diabetes Well-being scores) and process outcomes were collected.
                There were significant improvements in diabetes care delivery and in psychosocial outcomes, but no significant improvements in biomedical outcomes. Process data collection revealed a significant increase in diabetes care-related activity for participating patients with an increase in structured annual reviews and fewer patients defaulting from care. There were also significant improvements in information exchange between primary and secondary care.
                Structured diabetes shared care, in a mixed health care system, can produce significant improvements in diabetes care delivery and in psychosocial outcomes for patients, with improved information exchange across the primary-secondary care interface. The long-term management of patients with chronic conditions such as hypertension presents problems for the health services. Shared care addresses these by coordinating care and defining responsibilities.
                This study set out to investigate the feasibility, acceptability and cost effectiveness of shared general practitioner-hospital care for well-controlled hypertensive patients in an urban area by comparing three matched groups of patients.
                A total of 554 outpatient clinic attenders, considered suitable for shared care by their consultant, were randomly allocated to shared care or follow up in the outpatient clinic; a third group of 277 patients was selected from a nurse practitioner clinic. Main outcome measures were the proportion of patients in the second year of follow up who had undergone a complete review (blood pressure measurement, serum creatinine level result and electrocardiograph report), acceptability to patients and general practitioners as assessed by questionnaire, and cost per complete review in year two (National Health Service and patient costs).
                After two years 220 (82%) shared care patients had had a complete review compared with 146 (54%) outpatient clinic attenders and 202 (75%) nurse practitioner clinic attenders. Blood pressure control was similar in each group. Of 297 general practitioners invited, 85% wished to participate in the study; 61% of questionnaire respondents subsequently wanted shared care to continue while 25% were unsure. Half of the patients receiving shared care preferred this method of follow up. The rank order of cost-effectiveness ratios was shared care, nurse practitioner care and conventional outpatient care, relative differences being most marked when only patient costs were considered.
                Shared care for hypertension is feasible in an urban setting, acceptable to the majority of participants and is a cost-effective method of long-term follow up. Few formalized shared care schemes exist within psychiatry and the evidence base for sharing psychiatric care is weak.
                To evaluate the utility of patient-held shared care records for individuals with long-term mental illness.
                Cluster-randomised controlled parallel-group 12-month trial involving 90 patients with long-term mental illness drawn from 28 general practices.
                Carrying a shared care record had no significant effect on mental state or satisfaction with psychiatric services. Compared with controls, patients in the shared care group were no more likely to be admitted (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 0.86-1.67) and attend clinic (relative risk 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.36) over the study period. Uptake of the shared care scheme was low by patients and professionals alike. Subjects with psychotic illness were significantly less likely to use their records (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.99).
                Patient-held records may not be helpful for patients with long-term mental illness. Recent national guidelines emphasize the requirement for all general practitioners to manage drug users within a shared care scheme and suggest that a primary health care liaison worker (PHCLW) may facilitate these arrangements. We undertook a group-randomized, randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a PHCLW in promoting shared care.
                Primary health care teams in Stockport Health Authority, North West England, were randomly allocated to either an intervention arm, who were offered the services of a PHCLW, or to a control arm, who were offered standard support from the community drug team (CDT). The proportion of CDT clients with a history of regular opiate misuse who were in shared care 12 months after randomization was compared across study arms.
                Eighteen (24.0 per cent) of the 75 CDT clients in the intervention arm but none of the 80 CDT clients in the control arm were in shared care at 12 months (chi2 = 9.37, df = 1, p < 0.01; 95 per cent confidence interval 8.6-39.4 per cent).
                A PHCLW can significantly increase the number of CDT clients in shared care arrangements. To evaluate the effectiveness of a population based, multifaceted shared care intervention for late life depression in residential care.
                Randomised controlled trial, with control and intervention groups studied one after the other and blind follow up after 9.5 months.
                Population of residential facility in Sydney living in self care units and hostels.
                220 depressed residents aged >/=65 without severe cognitive impairment.
                The shared care intervention included: (a) multidisciplinary consultation and collaboration, (b) training of general practitioners and carers in detection and management of depression, and (c) depression related health education and activity programmes for residents. The control group received routine care.
                Geriatric depression scale.
                Intention to treat analysis was used. There was significantly more movement to "less depressed" levels of depression at follow up in the intervention than control group (Mantel-Haenszel stratification test, P=0.0125). Multiple linear regression analysis found a significant intervention effect after controlling for possible confounders, with the intervention group showing an average improvement of 1.87 points on the geriatric depression scale compared with the control group (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 2.97, P=0.0011).
                The outcome of depression among elderly people in residential care can be improved by multidisciplinary collaboration, by enhancing the clinical skills of general practitioners and care staff, and by providing depression related health education and activity programmes for residents. Despite evidence of high psychological distress and unmet needs, evaluated interventions for informal caregivers in palliative care are few. This study involved an observational outcome evaluation of attendees, and a comparison group, in specialist home palliative care. The measures included carer psychological status and patient physical status at baseline, 8 weeks, and 20 weeks. Qualitative data were collected regarding content, satisfaction with, and impact of intervention. Process data described the uptake, resources, and group activity. The intervention combined informal multiprofessional teaching with facilitated peer exchange and support, and was delivered over 6 sessions of 90 minutes per week. The uptake rate was 25%; carers were less likely to accept if they were in paid employment (OR=0.26, P=0.06), and more likely to accept if they utilized avoidance coping (OR=1.13, P=0.04) or their patient had worse physical status (OR=2.1, P=0.03). Attendees described significant support and knowledge gains from the multiprofessional input and peer group. Most relied on social comparison processes to appraise their situation. Potential detection of significant effects on global psychological scores (i.e. anxiety, depression, and burden) using multivariate analysis was disallowed due to attrition. This acceptable and accessible intervention provided information and support; further outcome studies are needed for a range of interventions. Short-term interventions are unlikely to affect global psychological scores, and future evaluations should include additional time points of data collection to demonstrate support during attendance. To measure effects on terminally ill cancer patients and their families of coordinating the services available within the NHS and from local authorities and the voluntary sector.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Inner London health district.
                Cancer patients were routinely notified from 1987 to 1990. 554 patients expected to survive less than one year entered the trial and were randomly allocated to a coordination or a control group.
                All patients received routinely available services. Coordination group patients received the assistance of two nurse coordinators, whose role was to ensure that patients received appropriate and well coordinated services, tailored to their individual needs and circumstances.
                Patients and carers were interviewed at home on entry to the trial and at intervals until death. Interviews after bereavement were also conducted. Outcome measures included the presence and severity of physical symptoms, psychiatric morbidity, use of and satisfaction with services, and carers' problems. Results from the baseline interview, the interview closest to death, and the interview after bereavement were analysed.
                Few differences between groups were significant. Coordination group patients were less likely to suffer from vomiting, were more likely to report effective treatment for it, and less likely to be concerned about having an itchy skin. Their carers were more likely to report that in the last week of life the patient had had a cough and had had effective treatment for constipation, and they were less likely to rate the patient's difficulty swallowing as severe or to report effective treatment for anxiety. Coordination group patients were more likely to have seen a chiropodist and their carers were more likely to contact a specialist nurse in a night time emergency. These carers were less likely to feel angry about the death of the patient.
                This coordinating service made little difference to patient or family outcomes, perhaps because the service did not have a budget with which it could obtain services or because the professional skills of the nurse-coordinators may have conflicted with the requirements of the coordinating role. There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation. To compare collaborative care for treatment of depression in primary care with consult-liaison (CL) care. In collaborative care, a mental health team provided a treatment plan to the primary care provider, telephoned patients to support adherence to the plan, reviewed treatment results, and suggested modifications to the provider. In CL care, study clinicians informed the primary care provider of the diagnosis and facilitated referrals to psychiatry residents practicing in the primary care clinic.
                Patients were randomly assigned to treatment model by clinic firm.
                VA primary care clinic.
                One hundred sixty-eight collaborative care and 186 CL patients who met criteria for major depression and/or dysthymia.
                Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20), Short Form (SF)-36, Sheehan Disability Scale.
                Collaborative care produced greater improvement than CL in depressive symptomatology from baseline to 3 months (SCL-20 change scores), but at 9 months there was no significant difference. The intervention increased the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions and cognitive behavioral therapy. Collaborative care produced significantly greater improvement on the Sheehan at 3 months. A greater proportion of collaborative care patients exhibited an improvement in SF-36 Mental Component Score of 5 points or more from baseline to 9 months.
                Collaborative care resulted in more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology, and a more rapid and sustained improvement in mental health status compared to the more standard model. Mounting evidence indicates that collaboration between primary care providers and mental health specialists can improve depression treatment and supports the necessary changes in clinic structure and incentives. Patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms often exhibit general dysfunction and psychiatric comorbidity and frequently resist psychiatric referral. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a collaborative care model including training for general practitioners (GPs) and a psychiatric consultation model for patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice.
                Randomised controlled trial. Cluster randomisation at GP practices and multilevel analysis were performed. A total of 81 patients from 36 general practices completed the study. A collaborative care model of training and psychiatric consultation in general practice in the presence of the GP was compared with training plus care as usual by the GP. Outcome assessment on the patients' well-being, functioning and utilisation of health care services was performed 6 weeks and 6 months later.
                All the patients had somatoform disorders (Whitely Index 7.46), and 86% had comorbid psychiatric disorders. In the intervention group, the severity of the main medically unexplained symptoms decreased by 58%. The patients' social functioning improved. The utilization of health care was lower than in the care as usual group.
                A collaborative care model combining training with psychiatric consultation in the general practice setting is an effective intervention in the treatment of persistent medically unexplained symptoms. Anxiety and depressive disorders are highly comorbid in this group. The findings warrant a larger study. In a pilot study, 55 low-income Latina patients with breast or cervical cancer and comorbid depression were randomly assigned to receive collaborative care as part of the Multifaceted Oncology Depression Program or usual care. Relative to patients in the usual care condition, patients receiving collaborative care were more likely to show>or=50% improvement in depressive symptoms as measured by the Personal Health Questionnaire (OR=4.51, 95% CI=1.07-18.93). Patients in the collaborative care program were also more likely to show improvement in emotional well-being (increase of 2.15) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale than were those receiving usual care (decrease of 0.50) (group difference=2.65, 95% CI: 0.18-5.12). Despite health system, provider, and patient barriers to care, these initial results suggest that patients in public sector oncology clinics can benefit from onsite depression treatment. Caring for relatives with advanced cancer may cause psychological and physical ill health.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of increased support for distressed, informal carers of patients receiving palliative care.
                The sample was composed of 271 informal carers who scored over 5 on the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). The intervention comprised six weekly visits by a trained advisor. Primary outcome was carer distress (GHQ-28) at 4-week, 9-week and 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were carer strain and quality of life, satisfaction with care, and bereavement outcome.
                Scores on the GHQ-28 fell below the threshold of 5/6 in a third of participants in each trial arm at any follow-up point. Mean scores in the intervention group were lower at all time points but these differences were not significant. No difference was observed in secondary outcomes. Carers receiving the intervention reported qualitative benefit.
                The intervention might have been too brief, and ongoing help might have had accruing benefits. Alternatively, informal carers of patients with cancer may already receive considerable input and the advisor's help gave little additional advantage; or caring for a dying relative is extremely stressful and no amount of support is going to make it much better. This study assessed treatment preferences among low-income Latino patients in public-sector primary care clinics and examined whether a collaborative care intervention that included patient education and allowed patients to choose between medication, therapy, or both would increase the likelihood that patients received preferred treatment.
                A total of 339 Latino patients with probable depressive disorders were recruited; participants completed a baseline conjoint analysis preference survey and were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or enhanced usual care. At 16 weeks, a patient survey assessed depression treatment received during the study period. Logistic regression models were constructed to estimate treatment preferences, examine patient characteristics associated with treatment preferences, and examine patient characteristics associated with a match between stated preference and actual treatment received.
                The conjoint analysis preference survey showed that patients preferred counseling or counseling plus medication over antidepressant medication alone and that they preferred treatment in primary care over specialty mental health care, but they showed no significant preference for individual versus group treatment. Patients also indicated that individual education sessions, telephone sessions, transportation assistance, and family involvement were barrier reduction strategies that would enhance their likelihood of accepting treatment. Compared with patients assigned to usual care, those in the intervention group were 21 times as likely to receive preferred treatment. Among all participants, women, unemployed persons, those who spoke English, and those referred by providers were more likely to receive preferred treatment.
                Collaborative care interventions that include psychotherapy can increase the likelihood that Latino patients receive preferred care; however, special efforts may be needed to address preferences of working persons, men, and Spanish-speaking patients. Many stroke patients and informal carers experience a decreased quality of life after discharge home and are dissatisfied with the care received. We assessed the effectiveness of an outreach nursing care program.
                In a multicenter trial, 536 stroke patients were randomized at discharge to standard care (n=273) or standard care plus outreach care (n=263). The outreach care consisted of 3 telephone calls and 1 home visit within 5 months after discharge by 1 of 13 stroke nurses. Patients were masked for the trial objectives. Six months after discharge, they assessed the 2 primary outcomes: quality of life (Short Form 36 [SF-36]) and dissatisfaction with care. Secondary measures of outcome were disability, handicap, depression, anxiety, and use of health care services and secondary prevention drugs. Informal carers assessed strain, and social support. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                Twelve patients died before follow-up, 38 declined outcome assessment, and 486 completed the primary outcome assessments. Outreach care patients had better scores on the SF-36 domain "Role Emotional" than controls (mean difference 7.9 [95% confidence limit, 0.1 to 15.7]). No statistically significant differences were found on the other primary outcome measures. For secondary outcomes, no statistically significant differences were found, except that intervention patients used fewer rehabilitation services (relative risk, 0.66 [0.44 to 1.00]) and had lower anxiety scores (median difference 1 [0.19 to 2.79]).
                This outreach nursing stroke care was not effective in improving quality of life and dissatisfaction with care of recently discharged patients. This 24-month exploratory study evaluated whether a 6-month programme supported by a trained external facilitator was feasible, acceptable and led to the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to audit by secondary care staff. Undertaken in five acute hospital sites in the East Midlands UK, 22 multidisciplinary teams were randomised to either an intervention or control arm. Employing mixed methods, a range of outcomes, including collaborative behaviour, was measured. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to staff. Involvement in the facilitated programme had a positive impact on self-reported knowledge (P=0.000 post-intervention and at 4-months follow-up), skills (P=0.000 post-intervention and P=0.02 at 4-months follow-up) and attitudes (P<0.01 post-intervention), appeared to have some influence on improving self-reported (P<0.05 post-intervention) and observed collaborative behaviour (P=0.01) and led to better quality audit resulting in measurable improvements to care. Improved collaborative behaviour may have resulted from an increase in assertive behaviour by nurses. Research to test approaches to support teams to work effectively together is currently hampered by a lack of suitable research instruments and needs addressing before main (phase 111) trials are undertaken. Meta-analyses show collaborative care models (CCMs) with nurse care management are effective for improving primary care for depression. This study aimed to develop CCM approaches that could be sustained and spread within Veterans Affairs (VA). Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) uses QI approaches within a research/clinical partnership to redesign care. The study used EBQI methods for CCM redesign, tested the effectiveness of the locally adapted model as implemented, and assessed the contextual factors shaping intervention effectiveness.
                The study intervention is EBQI as applied to CCM implementation. The study uses a cluster randomized design as a formative evaluation tool to test and improve the effectiveness of the redesign process, with seven intervention and three non-intervention VA primary care practices in five different states. The primary study outcome is patient antidepressant use. The context evaluation is descriptive and uses subgroup analysis. The primary context evaluation measure is naturalistic primary care clinician (PCC) predilection to adopt CCM.For the randomized evaluation, trained telephone research interviewers enrolled consecutive primary care patients with major depression in the evaluation, referred enrolled patients in intervention practices to the implemented CCM, and re-surveyed at seven months.
                Interviewers enrolled 288 CCM site and 258 non-CCM site patients. Enrolled intervention site patients were more likely to receive appropriate antidepressant care (66% versus 43%, p = 0.01), but showed no significant difference in symptom improvement compared to usual care. In terms of context, only 40% of enrolled patients received complete care management per protocol. PCC predilection to adopt CCM had substantial effects on patient participation, with patients belonging to early adopter clinicians completing adequate care manager follow-up significantly more often than patients of clinicians with low predilection to adopt CCM (74% versus 48%%, p = 0.003).
                Depression CCM designed and implemented by primary care practices using EBQI improved antidepressant initiation. Combining QI methods with a randomized evaluation proved challenging, but enabled new insights into the process of translating research-based CCM into practice. Future research on the effects of PCC attitudes and skills on CCM results, as well as on enhancing the link between improved antidepressant use and symptom outcomes, is needed.
                ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00105820. The aim of this project was to assess whether outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting.
                Twenty facilities took part in a randomized controlled trial with a seven month follow-up period. Two outreach visits were delivered by a pharmacist. At the first a summary of the relevant evidence was provided and at the second detailed audit information was provided about fall rates, psychotropic drug prescribing and stroke risk reduction practices (BP monitoring, aspirin and warfarin use) for the facility relevant to the physician. The effect of the interventions was determined via pre- and post-intervention case note audit. Outcomes included change in percentage patients at risk of falling who fell in a three month period prior to follow-up and changes in use of psychotropic medications. Chi-square tests, independent samples t-test, and logistic regression were used in the analysis.
                Data were available from case notes at baseline (n = 897) and seven months follow-up (n = 902), 452 residential care staff were surveyed and 121 physicians were involved with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre-and post-intervention data were available for 715 participants. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for the three month fall rate. We were unable to detect statistically significant differences between groups for the psychotropic drug use of the patients before or after the intervention. The exception was significantly greater use of "as required" antipsychotics in the intervention group compared with the control group after the pharmacy intervention (RR = 4.95; 95%CI 1.69-14.50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the numbers of patients "at risk of stroke" on aspirin at follow-up.
                While the strategy was well received by the physicians involved, there was no change in prescribing patterns. Patient care in residential settings is complex and involves contributions from the patient's physician, family and residential care staff. The project highlights challenges of delivering evidence based care in a setting in which there is a paucity of well controlled trial evidence but where significant health outcomes can be attained.
This review indicates that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant benefits from shared care apart from improved prescribing. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may partially account for this lack of evidence. This review indicates that there is no evidence to support the widespread introduction of shared care services at present. Future shared-care interventions should only be developed within research settings and with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and the need to carry out longer studies to test the effectiveness and sustainability of shared care over time.