4.4 Article

Effects of Case Management for Frail Older People or Those With Chronic Illness A Systematic Review

期刊

NURSING RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 201-210

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181a30941

关键词

case management; systematic review

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Financial constraints and quality requirements demand that interventions selected are most effective. A previous systematic review of the effectiveness of the patient advocacy case management model was not found. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of patient advocacy case management on service use and healthcare costs for impaired older people or adults with a chronic somatic disease living in the community. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. Included were English-language randomized controlled trials evaluating service use and costs of the patient advocacy case management model for people with a chronic somatic disease or for impaired older people living in the community. Results: Eight relevant studies were identified and included after evaluation of methodological quality. All studies concerned frail or impaired older people, and one study also included people with a somatic chronic disease. In none of the studies was evidence found for clinically relevant increase of service use and costs, whereas in two studies, it was reported that patient advocacy case management led to decreased service use and to savings in costs. Discussion: Patient advocacy case management does not increase service use and costs and was effective in decreasing service use and costs in two studies. These conclusions are an indication for quality improvement through the combination of its organizational benefits. Therefore, there should be more priority given to further implementation of patient advocacy case management for those with chronic illness and impaired older people. Nursing can play an important role in this development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据