Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: As primary care practices evolve into medical homes, there is an increasing need for effective models to shift from visit-based to population-based strategies for care. However, most medical teams lack tools and training to manage panels of patients. As part of a study comparing different approaches to panel management at the Manhattan and Brooklyn campuses of the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, we created a toolkit of strategies that non-clinician panel management assistants (PMAs) can use to enhance panel-wide outcomes in smoking cessation and hypertension. METHODS: We created the toolkit using: 1) literature review and consultation with outside experts, 2) key informant interviews with staff identified using snowball sampling, 3) pilot testing for feasibility and acceptability, and 4) further revision based on a survey of primary care providers and nurses. These steps resulted in progressively refined strategies for the PMAs to support the primary care team. RESULTS: Literature review and expert consultation resulted in an extensive list of potentially useful strategies. Key informant interviews and staff surveys identified several areas of need for assistance, including help to manage the most challenging patients, providing care outside of the visit, connecting patients with existing resources, and providing additional patient education. The strategies identified were then grouped into 5 areas -- continuous connection to care, education and connection to clinical resources, targeted behavior change counseling, adherence support, and patients with special needs. CONCLUSIONS: Although panel management is a central aspect of patient-centered medical homes, providers and health care systems have little guidance or evidence as to how teams should accomplish this objective. We created a toolkit to help PMAs support the clinical care team for patients with hypertension or tobacco use. This toolkit development process could readily be adapted to other behaviors or conditions. Trial registration: NCT01677533 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM OR QUESTION (ONE SENTENCE): To determine how adding a non-clinical member to primary care teams can improve hypertension and smoking cessation outcomes in Veteran Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System's (VA NYHHS) implementation of the VA's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, known as Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION (NO MORE THAN THREE OBJECTIVES): As part of the Program for Research on Outcomes of VA Education (PROVE) study, we sought to define a toolkit of panel management strategies that Panel Management Assistants (PMAs) will use to improve outcomes in smoking cessation and hypertension across patient panels. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (E.G. INPATIENTVS. OUTPATIENT, PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS): Coincident with the nation-wide implementation of PACT across the VA system, PROVE explores the incremental impact of panel management and clinical microsystem education on hypertension and smoking outcomes. Two-thirds of randomly selected PACT teams in ambulatory care clinics at the Brooklyn and Manhattan campuses of the VA NYHHS had a PMA added to the team. Based on literature review and qualitative interviews of clinicians and key stakeholders at VA NYHHS, we developed a core toolkit of strategies utilizing clinical databases to target subsets of smokers and hypertensive patients that could benefit from specialized panel management interventions outside of the patient visit, such as identifying smokers who have not recently received tobacco cessation medications. MEASURES OF SUCCESS (DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND/OR QUANTITATIVEMETRICSWHICH WILL BE USED TOEVALUATE PROGRAM/INTERVENTION): Prior to PROVE's intervention, we determined baseline rates of hypertension (uncontrolled and controlled) and smoking for all PACT panels. To assess PROVE's effectiveness of integrating panel management strategies by PACT teams, we will survey providers and nurses at baseline, 6 and 12 months to me!

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins are effective for treating venous thrombosis, but their cost-effectiveness has not been rigorously assessed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DESIGN: Decision model. DATA SOURCES: Probabilities for clinical outcomes were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cost estimates were derived from Medicare reimbursement and other sources. TARGET POPULATION: Two hypothetical cohorts of 60-year-old men with acute deep venous thrombosis. TIME HORIZON: Patient lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin or adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. An in-patient hospital setting was used for the base-case analysis. Secondary analyses examined outpatient treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Total costs for inpatient treatment were $26,516 for low-molecular-weight heparin and $26,361 for unfractionated heparin. The cost of initial care was higher in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, but this was partly offset by reduced costs for early complications. Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by approximately 0.02 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment was $7820 per QALY gained. Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was cost saving when as few as 8% of patients were treated at home. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received unfractionated heparin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to almost $75,000 per QALY gained. When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, this treatment resulted in a net cost savings. Inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment became cost saving when its pharmacy cost was reduced by 31% or more, when it reduced the yearly incidence of late complications by at least 7%, when as few as 8% of patients were treated entirely as outpatients, or when at least 13% of patients were eligible for early discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are highly cost-effective for inpatient management of venous thrombosis. This treatment reduces costs when small numbers of patients are eligible for outpatient management