A model-based evaluation of collaborative care in management of patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia: an initial report
Hossein Haji Ali Afzali A C , Jonathan Karnon A , Jodi Gray A and Justin Beilby BA Discipline of Public Health, School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, The University of Adelaide, 178 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: jonathan.karnon@adelaide.edu.au, jodi.gray@adelaide.edu.au
B Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, 178 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: justin.beilby@adelaide.edu.au
C Corresponding author. Email: hossein.hajialiafzali@adelaide.edu.au
Australian Health Review 36(3) 258-263 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11084
Submitted: 5 September 2011 Accepted: 12 February 2012 Published: 27 July 2012
Abstract
Objectives. To analyse the short- and long-term costs and benefits of alternative models of primary care for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia. The models of care reflect differential uptake of primary care-based incentive programs, including reminder systems and involvement of practice nurses in management. This paper describes our study protocol and its progress.
Methods. We are undertaking an observational study using a cluster sample design that links retrospective patient data from a range of sources to estimate costs and intermediate outcomes (such as the level of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c)) over a 3-year time horizon. We use the short-term data as a basis to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of alternative models of care using a decision analytic model.
Initial report. We recruited 15 practices from a metropolitan area (Adelaide) and allocated them to three models of care. Three hundred and ninety-nine patients agreed to participate. We use multilevel analysis to evaluate the association between different models of care and patient-level outcomes, while controlling for several covariates.
Discussion/conclusions. Given the large amount of funding currently used to maintain primary care-based incentives in general practices in Australia, the results of this study generate the knowledge required to promote investment in the most cost-effective incentives.
What is known about the topic? Collaborative models of care can improve the outcomes in patients with chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), and the large amount of funding is currently used to maintain primary care-based initiatives to provide incentives for general practices to take a more multidisciplinary approach in management of chronic diseases.
What does this paper add? There are few model-based studies of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care defined on the basis of the uptake of financial incentives within Australian primary care settings for diabetes management. Using routinely collected data, this project evaluates the effectiveness of alternative models of care and estimates long-term costs and benefits of various models of care.
What are the implications for practitioners? This study explores opportunities for the use of linked, routinely collected data to evaluate clinical practice, and identifies the optimal model of care in management of patients with T2D, with respect to differences in long-term costs and outcomes.
References
[1] Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 1047–53.| Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15111519PubMed |
[2] King’s Fund Policy Institute. Counting the cost: the real impact of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. London: British Diabetic Association; 1997.
[3] National Health Priority Action Council. National service improvement framework for diabetes. Canberra: Australian Government; 2006.
[4] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). National health survey: summary of results 2007–08. Canberra: ABS; 2009.
[5] The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Diabetes: Australian facts. Canberra: AIHW; 2008.
[6] The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). Team approach to diabetes in general practice: a guide for practice nurse. Melbourne: RACGP; 2010.
[7] American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1989; 12 365–8.
| 2721345PubMed |
[8] Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin SJ, Wagner E, Van Eijk JThM, Assendelft WJJ. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings. Amsterdam: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2008.
[9] Groeneveld Y, Petri H, Hermans J, Springer M. An assessment of structured care assistance in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care 2001; 19 25–30.
| An assessment of structured care assistance in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvntlWisA%3D%3D&md5=7f19a83295c1e42b327bc607b906e291CAS | 11303543PubMed |
[10] Campbell S, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Middleton E, Sibbald B, Roland M. Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 181–90.
| Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXnslSjtb0%3D&md5=2f44a1826d6c588b134408df5b967fdfCAS | 17625132PubMed |
[11] Fine ND, Beck-Nielsen H, Andreasen AH, Horder M, Pedersen PA. Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ 2001; 323 1–8.
[12] Harris A, Buxton M, O’Brien B, Drummond FR. Using economic evidence in reimbursement decisions for heath technologies: experience of 4 countries. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2001; 1 7–12.
| Using economic evidence in reimbursement decisions for heath technologies: experience of 4 countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1Mnntlerug%3D%3D&md5=8d638f5eba6311129e6baa5ec7d4bb58CAS | 19807502PubMed |
[13] Beilby JC, Holton C, Moss J. Economic evaluation of multi-disciplinary systematic care of patients with diabetes mellitus in general practice. Adelaide: Primary Health Care Research and Information Service; 2001.
[14] McRae IS, Butler J, Sibthorpe M, Ruscoe W, Snow J, Rubiano D, et al A cost effectiveness study of integrated care in health services delivery: a diabetes program in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8 205–16.
| A cost effectiveness study of integrated care in health services delivery: a diabetes program in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18834551PubMed |
[15] Primary Health Care Research and Information Service. Key Division of General Practice characteristics 2007–2008. Adelaide: PHCRIS, 2009. Available at http://www.phcris.org.au/products/asd/keycharacteristic/index.php [verified 25 June 2012].
[16] Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU). Population health profile of the Adelaide Northern Division of General Practice. Adelaide: PHIDU; 2005.
[17] Watts I, Foley E, Hutchinson R, Pascoe T, Whitecross L, Snowdon T. General practice nursing in Australia. Canberra: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners & Royal College of Nursing; 2004.
[18] Australian Department of Health and Aging. Medicare benefits schedule. Available at http://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/fullDisplay.cfm?type=item&q=10997 [verified 2 March 2012].
[19] Molinaro RJ. Targeting HbA1c: standardization and clinical laboratory measurement. MLO Med Lab Obs 2008; 40 10–6.
| 18314846PubMed |
[20] UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet 1998; 352 837–53.
| Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 9742976PubMed |
[21] Earnshaw SR, Richter A, Sorensen SW, Hoerger TJ, Hicks KA, Engelgau M, et al Optimal allocation of resources across four interventions for type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making 2002; 22 S80–91.
| Optimal allocation of resources across four interventions for type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12369234PubMed |
[22] Harris P, Mann L, Marshal P, Philips P, Wobster C. Diabetes management in general practices. Guidelines for type 2 diabetes. Sydney: Diabetes Australia Publication; 2008.
[23] Young D, Fuler J, Vale M, Walker C, Segal L, Dunning P, et al Patient Engagement and Coaching for Health: the PEACH study – a cluster randomised controlled trial using the telephone to coach people with type 2 diabetes to engage with their GPs to improve diabetes care: a study protocol. BMC Fam Pract 2007; 8 20
| Patient Engagement and Coaching for Health: the PEACH study – a cluster randomised controlled trial using the telephone to coach people with type 2 diabetes to engage with their GPs to improve diabetes care: a study protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17428318PubMed |
[24] Taggart J, Wan Q, Davies GP, Harris M. A longitudinal analysis of type 2 diabetes data from the Macarthur Division of General Practice. Sydney: The University of New South Wales; 2006.
[25] Littenberg B, MacLean CD. Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: the Vermont Diabetes Information System field survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6 20
| Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: the Vermont Diabetes Information System field survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16672056PubMed |
[26] van Bruggen R, Gorter KJ, Stolk RP, Verhoeven RP, Rutten GP. Implementation of locally adapted guidelines on type 2 diabetes. Fam Pract 2008; 25 430–7.
| Implementation of locally adapted guidelines on type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18718886PubMed |
[27] Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research: volume II- the design and analysis of cohort studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987.
[28] Diez-Roux AV. Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu Rev Public Health 2000; 21 171–92.
| Multilevel analysis in public health research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FhsVCktQ%3D%3D&md5=c27fb707d3a3dec14fe1817244894cbeCAS | 10884951PubMed |
[29] Diez-Roux AV. Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health 1998; 88 216–22.
| Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ltFOisg%3D%3D&md5=58059b58e7a7753ab2b77c2cff2c16ccCAS | 9491010PubMed |
[30] Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Farmer AJ, Fenn P, Stevens RJ, et al A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS 68). Diabetologia 2004; 47 1747–59.
| A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS 68).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2crnvFWquw%3D%3D&md5=05ec05598297691d632ee27ad7f262beCAS | 15517152PubMed |
[31] Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: The Australian Government; 2007.
