Case management (CM) is an important strategy for chronic disease care. By utilizing non-physician providers for conditions requiring ongoing care and follow-up, CM can facilitate guideline-concordant care, patient empowerment, and improvement in quality of life. We identify a series of critical factors required for successful CM implementation. Heart to Heart is a clinical trial evaluating CM for coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction in a multiethnic, low-income population. Patients at elevated cardiac risk were randomized to CM plus primary care (212 patients) or to primary care alone (207). Over a mean follow-up of 17 months, patients received face-to-face nurse and dietitian visits. Mean contact time was 14 hours provided at an estimated cost of $1250 per patient for the 341 (81%) patients completing follow-up. Visits emphasized behavior change, risk-factor monitoring, self-management skills, and guideline-based pharmacotherapy. A statistically significant reduction in mean Framingham risk probability occurred in CM plus primary care relative to primary care alone (1.6% decrease in 10-year CHD risk, p = 0.007). Favorable changes were noted across individual risk factors. Our findings suggest that successful CM implementation relies on choosing appropriate case managers and investing in training, integrating CM into existing care systems, delineating the scope and appropriate levels of clinical decision making, using information systems, and monitoring outcomes and costs. While our population, setting, and intervention model are unique, these insights are broadly relevant. If implemented with attention to critical factors, CM has great potential to improve the process and outcomes of chronic disease care.

In recent decades, elderly Americans have enjoyed enormous gains in longevity and reductions in disability. The causes of this progress remain unclear, however. This paper investigates the role of fetal programming, exploring how economic progress early in the 20th century might be related to declining disability today. Specifically, we match sudden unexpected economic changes experienced in utero in America's Dust Bowl during the Great Depression to unusually detailed individual-level information about old-age disability and chronic disease. We are unable to detect any meaningful relationship between early life factors and outcomes in later life. We conclude that, if such a relationship exists in the United States, it is most likely not a quantitatively important explanation for declining disability today.

Background: In 2002, the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education enacted regulations, effective 1 July 2003, that limited work hours for all residency programs in the United States.

Objective: To determine whether work-hour regulations were associated with changes in mortality in hospitalized patients.

Design: Comparison of mortality rates in high-risk teaching service patients hospitalized before and after July 2003, with nonteaching service patients used as a control group.

Setting: 551 U.S. community hospitals included in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Survey between January 2001 and December 2004.

Patients: 1,511,945 adult patients admitted for 20 medical and 15 surgical diagnoses.

Measurement: Inpatient mortality.

Results: In 1,268,738 medical patients examined, the regulations were associated with a 0.25% reduction in the absolute mortality rate (P = 0.043) and a 3.75% reduction in the relative risk for death. In subgroup analyses, particularly large improvements in mortality were observed among patients admitted for infectious diseases (change, -0.66%; P = 0.007) and in medical patients older than 80 years of age (change, -0.71%; P = 0.005). By contrast, in 243 207 surgical patients, regulations were not associated with statistically significant changes (change, 0.13%; P = 0.54).

Limitations: Teaching status was assigned according to hospital characteristics because direct information on each patient's provider was not available. Results reflect changes associated with the sum of regulations, not specifically with caps on work hours.

Conclusions: The work-hour regulations were associated with decreased short-term mortality among high-risk medical patients in teaching hospitals but were not associated with statistically significant changes among surgical patients in teaching hospitals.

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been proposed as a sustainable solution for improving the quality of medical care. We assessed the association between EHR use, as implemented, and the quality of ambulatory care in a nationally representative survey.

Methods: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of visits in the 2003 and 2004 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We examined EHR use throughout the United States and the association of EHR use with 17 ambulatory quality indicators. Performance on quality indicators was defined as the percentage of applicable visits in which patients received recommended care.

Results: Electronic health records were used in 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%-22%) of the estimated 1.8 billion ambulatory visits (95% CI, 1.7-2.0 billion) in the United States in 2003 and 2004. For 14 of the 17 quality indicators, there was no significant difference in performance between visits with vs without EHR use. Categories of these indicators included medical management of common diseases, recommended antibiotic prescribing, preventive counseling, screening tests, and avoiding potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in elderly patients. For 2 quality indicators, visits to medical practices using EHRs had significantly better performance: avoiding benzodiazepine use for patients with depression (91% vs 84%; P = .01) and avoiding routine urinalysis during general medical examinations (94% vs 91%; P = .003). For 1 quality indicator, visits to practices using EHRs had significantly worse quality: statin prescribing to patients with hypercholesterolemia (33% vs 47%; P = .01).

Conclusion: As implemented, EHRs were not associated with better quality ambulatory care.

This issue of CHP/PCOR's Quarterly Update covers news from the Spring 2007 quarter and includes articles about:

• the HIV/AIDS International Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, that was attended by the CHP/PCOR National Institute on Drug Abuse project team;
• a special international health section that highlights HIV/AIDS research in Zimbabwe, and two Payne lecturer talks, given by David Heymann and Peter Piot, speaking on infectious diseases and HIV/AIDS, respectively;
• two Research in Brief selections -- one highlights health care financing structures in high-income countries, and the second covers an ongoing trial that incorporates a smoking cessation program into posttraumatic stress disorder treatment at the VA;
• a Staff Spotlight feature on new CHP/PCOR core faculty member Sally Horwitz;
• two conferences -- one hosted by the Stanford International Initiative and the other a National Summit on America's Children at the Capitol.

We use an empirically calibrated model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in Brazil, a country with a high cervical cancer burden. Assuming 70% coverage, HPV 16, 18 vaccination of adolescent girls is expected to reduce the lifetime risk of cancer by approximately 42.7% (range, 33.2-53.5%); screening three times per lifetime is expected to reduce risk by 21.9-30.7% depending on the screening test, and a combined approach of vaccination and screening is expected to reduce cancer risk by a mean of 60.8% (range, 52.8-70.1%). In Brazil; provided the cost per vaccinated woman is less than I$ 25, implying a per dose cost of approximately I$ 5, vaccination before age 12, followed by screening three times per lifetime between ages 35 and 45, would be considered very cost-effective using the country's per capita gross domestic product as a cost-effectiveness threshold. Assuming a coverage rate of 70%, this strategy would be expected to prevent approximately 100,000 cases of invasive cervical cancer over a 5-year period. Vaccination strategies identified as cost-effective may be unaffordable in countries with similar socioeconomic profiles as Brazil without assistance; these results can provide guidance to the global community by identifying health investments of highest priority and with the greatest promise.

CONTEXT: Quality problems and spiraling costs have resulted in widespread interest in solutions that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. Care coordination has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as one of the key strategies for potentially accomplishing these improvements.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this project were to develop a working definition of care coordination, apply it to a review of systematic reviews, and identify theoretical frameworks that might predict or explain how care coordination mechanisms are influenced by factors in the health care setting and how they relate to patient outcomes and health care costs.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: We used literature databases, Internet searches, and personal contacts to assemble background information on ongoing care coordination programs; potential definitions; conceptual frameworks and related empirical evidence; and care coordination measures. We also conducted literature searches through September 30, 2006 of MEDLINE®, and November 15, 2006 for CINAHL®, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts to identify systematic reviews of care coordination interventions. We excluded systematic reviews with a narrow focus, namely those conducted solely in the inpatient setting, or where the only two participants involved in care were the patient and a health care provider.

RESULTS: We identified numerous ongoing programs in the private and public sector, most of which have not yet been evaluated. We identified over 40 definitions of care coordination and related terminology, and developed a working definition drawing together common elements: Care coordination is the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including the patient) involved in a patient's care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshalling of personnel and other resources needed to carry out all required patient care activities, and is often managed by the exchange of information among participants responsible for different aspects of care. We used this definition to develop our inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting potentially relevant systematic reviews. Our literature search yielded 4,730 publications, of which 75 systematic reviews evaluating care coordination interventions, either fully or as a part of the review, met inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 20 different coordination interventions (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, case management, disease management) covering 12 clinical populations (e.g., mental health, heart disease, diabetes) and conducted in multiple settings (e.g., outpatient, community, home). Finally, we identified four conceptual frameworks (Andersen's behavioral framework, Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, Nadler/Tushman and others' Organizational design framework with Wagner's Chronic Care Model provided as an example of such design, and Gittell's Relational coordination framework) with potential applicability to studying care coordination by assessing baseline characteristics of the environment, specific coordination mechanism alternatives, and outcomes. The strongest evidence shows benefit of care coordination interventions for patients who have congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, severe mental illness, a recent stroke, or depression, though evidence about key intervention components is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: Care coordination interventions represent a wide range of approaches at the service delivery and systems level. Their effectiveness is most likely dependent upon appropriate matching between intervention and care coordination problem, though more conceptual, empirical and experimental research is required to explore this hypothesis.

Background: Only 31% of Americans with hypertension have their blood pressure (BP) under effective control. We describe a study that tests 3 different interventions in a randomized controlled trial using home BP telemedicine monitoring.

Methods: A sample of hypertensive patients with poor BP control at baseline (N = 600) are randomized to 1 of 4 arms: (1) control group—a group of hypertensive patients who receive usual care; (2) nurse-administered tailored behavioral intervention; (3) nurse-administered medication management according to a hypertension decision support system; (4) combination of the 2 interventions. The interventions are triggered based on home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices over standard telephone lines. The tailored behavioral intervention involves promoting adherence with medication and health behaviors. Patients randomized to the medication management or the combined arm have their hypertension regimen changed by the study team using a validated hypertension decision support system based on evidence-based hypertension treatment guidelines and individualized to patients' comorbid illnesses. The primary outcome is BP control: ≤140/90 mm Hg (nondiabetic) and ≤130/80 mm Hg (diabetics) measured at 6-month intervals over 18 months (4 total measurements).

Conclusions: Given the increasing prevalence of hypertension and our inability to achieve adequate BP control using traditional models of care, testing novel interventions in patients' homes may improve access, quality, and outcomes.

Objectives: The goal of this technical review is to critically examine the issue of care coordination for children with special health care needs (CSHCN). Of particular interest is the knowledge base relating to those aspects of care coordination for CSHCN that are of greatest importance to current practice and policy challenges.

Review Methods: A structured search and review of the literature was conducted to address the following issues:

1. Analytic approaches and definitions used for care coordination strategies for CSHCN.
2. Evidence for best practices of care coordination for CSHCN.
3. Evidence for the impact of managed care for CSHCN enrolled in Medicaid.

Results: Among the principal findings are:

1. Despite considerable progress in defining care coordination and CSHCN, there remains considerable variation in current analytic approaches and definitions.
2. Some progress has been made in developing care coordination strategies for CSHCN.
3. There is a major need to evaluate the impact of these strategies on health outcomes and costs.
4. Continued progress in care coordination for CSHCN may depend upon the replication and evaluation of promising strategies in different practice settings and under different reimbursement policies.
5. The constructive assessment of enhanced care coordination programs in managed care systems would be facilitated by new, more focused metrics and performance measures.
6. There is little evidence regarding the impact of managed care systems on CSHCN enrolled in Medicaid.

Recommendations: Among the principal recommendations are:

1. Increase support for efforts to identify in a standard manner CSHCN in large administrative or clinical datasets.
2. Expand efforts to evaluate care coordination interventions for CSHCN, particularly in managed care settings.
3. Develop capacity and performance standards of direct relevance for CSHCN for managed care plans.
4. Link development of care coordination programs for CSHCN to emerging practice and health system reforms.

Context: Quality problems and spiraling costs have resulted in widespread interest in solutions that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. Care coordination has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as one of the key strategies for potentially accomplishing these improvements.

Objectives: The objectives of this project were to develop a working definition of care coordination, apply it to a review of systematic reviews, and identify theoretical frameworks that might predict or explain how care coordination mechanisms are influenced by factors in the health care setting and how they relate to patient outcomes and health care costs.

Data Sources and Review Methods: We used literature databases, Internet searches, and personal contacts to assemble background information on ongoing care coordination programs; potential definitions; conceptual frameworks and related empirical evidence; and care coordination measures. We also conducted literature searches through September 30, 2006, of MEDLINE®, and November 15, 2006, for CINAHL®, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts to identify systematic reviews of care coordination interventions. We excluded systematic reviews with a narrow focus, namely those conducted solely in the inpatient setting, or where the only two participants involved in care were the patient and a health care provider.

Results: We identified numerous ongoing programs in the private and public sector, most of which have not yet been evaluated. We identified over 40 definitions of care coordination and related terminology, and developed a working definition drawing together common elements:

Care coordination is the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including the patient) involved in a patient's care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshalling of personnel and other resources needed to carry out all required patient care activities, and is often managed by the exchange of information among participants responsible for different aspects of care.

We used this definition to develop our inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting potentially relevant systematic reviews. Our literature search yielded 4,730 publications, of which 75 systematic reviews evaluating care coordination interventions, either fully or as a part of the review, met inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 20 different coordination interventions (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, case management, disease management) covering 12 clinical populations (e.g., mental health, heart disease, diabetes) and conducted in multiple settings (e.g., outpatient, community, home). Finally, we identified four conceptual frameworks (Andersen's behavioral framework, Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, Nadler/Tushman and others' Organizational design framework with Wagner's Chronic Care Model provided as an example of such design, and Gittell's Relational coordination framework) with potential applicability to studying care coordination by assessing baseline characteristics of the environment, specific coordination mechanism alternatives, and outcomes.

The strongest evidence shows benefit of care coordination interventions for patients who have congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, severe mental illness, a recent stroke, or depression, though evidence about key intervention components is lacking.

Conclusions: Care coordination interventions represent a wide range of approaches at the service delivery and systems level. Their effectiveness is most likely dependent upon appropriate matching between intervention and care coordination problem, though more conceptual, empirical and experimental research is required to explore this hypothesis.