A continuity care program in chronic, complex and frail patients: the PRO-CCF study protocol
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
INCLUSION CRITERIA
- Cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS)-C Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 17;
- Blaylock Risk Assessment Screening Score (BRASS) ≥ 11 18;
- 4 ≤ Clinical Frailty Scale ≤ 7 19;
- Negative response to Surprise Question: would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 24 months? 20;
- Written informed consent to participate to the study.
Intervention group
Control group
- they refuse consent to home care but accept study participation;
- they reside in a geographical area not covered by VIDAS assistance.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
- Patients unable to answer study questionnaires;
- Patients who do not provided a written informed consent to participate in the clinical study;
- Terminally ill patients (with prognosis < 1 year);
- Dependent patients without a stable caregiver.
POPULATION AND SAMPLE SIZE
STUDY PROCEDURES
- change over time in the patient quality of life as measured by the EuroQol 5D-5L scale 12, at hospital discharge, and at six and 12 months of follow-up. Both Inter- and intra-group comparisons will be performed;
- change in the patient performance status as measured by the Karnofsky scale 22 at hospital discharge, and at six and 12 months of follow-up. Both Inter- and intra-group comparisons will be performed;
- number of accesses to the emergency department between the two groups, in the 12 months after hospital discharge;
- number of hospitalizations in the two groups in the 12 months after hospital discharge;
- survival in the two groups at six and 12 months after hospital discharge;
- institutionalizations in the two groups in the 12 months after hospital discharge;
- change over time in the Modified Caregiver Strain Index (MCSI) score 23 at discharge, and at six and 12 months of follow-up. Comparison of MCSI scores at discharge, and at six and 12 months in the two groups. The MCSI is an easy-to-use tool for the strain screen of long-term caregivers. The tool is composed by 13 questions that measure strain, related to care provision. The main domains are: financial, physical, psychological, social, and personal ones. Each question receives a score of 2 points if the answer is ‘yes’, 1 point if the answer is ‘sometimes’, and 0 if the answer is ‘no’. The score ranges from 26 to 0, with higher scores indicating a higher level of caregiver strain;
- comparison of the number and timing of transition to palliative care in the two groups, in the 12 months after hospital discharge;
- comparison of the number of interventions by social workers, and request for an interview by relatives in the two groups, in the 12 months after hospital discharge;
- change in the Clinical Frailty Scale score 19 at discharge, at six and 12 months of follow-up, and comparison of Clinical Frailty Scale scores in the two groups at discharge, and at six and 12 months of follow-up;
- change in the simplified ACIC-S score 19 before and after hospitalization, and at six and 12 months after discharge. Both Inter- and intra-group comparisons will be performed.
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
MAIN OBSTACLES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM
CONCLUSIONS
Acknowledgements
Conflict of interest statement
Funding
Author contributions
Ethical consideration
History
References
- Brenna E, Gitto L. To what extent is long-term care representative of elderly care? A case study of elderly care financing in Lombardy, Italy. Int J Health Policy Manag 2017;6:467-471. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.22 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.22
- Grembowski D, Schaefer J, Johnson KE, et al. A conceptual model of the role of complexity in the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions. Med Care 2014;52(Suppl 3):S7-S14. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000045 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000045
- Liechti FD, Beck T, Ruetsche A, et al. Development and validation of a score to assess complexity of general internal medicine patients at hospital discharge: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2021;11:E041205. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041205 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041205
- Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 1968;16:622-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x
- Blaylock A, Cason CL. Discharge planning predicting patients’ needs. J Gerontol Nurs 1992;18:5-10. https://doi.org/10.3928/0098-9134-19920701-05 10.3928/0098-9134-19920701-05
- Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005;173:489-495. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.05005 10.1503/cmaj.05005
- Downar J, Goldman R, Pinto R, et al. The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis CMAJ 2017;189:E484-E493. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.160775 10.1503/cmaj.160775
- Boyd CM, Reider L, Frey K, et al. The effects of guided care on the perceived quality of health care for multi-morbid older persons: 18-month outcomes from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2009;25:235-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1192-5 10.1007/s11606-009-1192-5
- Boult C, Reider L, Frey K, et al. The early effects of ”guided care” on the quality of health care for multi-morbid older persons: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;63:321-327. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/63.3.321 10.1093/gerona/63.3.321
- Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000;19:3127-3131. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::aid-sim784>3.0.co;2-m 10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::aid-sim784>3.0.co;2-m
- Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC). Med Care 2005;43:436-444. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c
- EQ 5D-5L (https://euroqol.org).
- Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, ed. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Columbia University Press 1949, pp.191-205.
- Thornton M, Travis SS. Analysis of the reliability of the Modified Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:S127-S132. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.2.s12 10.1093/geronb/58.2.s12
- Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, et al. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr 2017;17:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2 10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2
- Pasina L, Recchia A, Nobili A, et al. Inappropriate medications among end-of-life patients living at home: an Italian observational study. Eur Geriatr Med 2020;11:505-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-020-00315-0 10.1007/s41999-020-00315-0
- Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Ramsch C, et al. Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA-SF): a practical tool for identification of nutritional status. J Nutr Health Aging 2009;13:782-788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0214-7 10.1007/s12603-009-0214-7
- Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. Sarcopenia: the target population. J Frailty Aging 2013;2:55-56. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2013.8 10.14283/jfa.2013.8
- Bonomi AE, Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, et al. Assessment of chronic illness care (ACIC): a practical tool to measure quality improvement. Health Serv Res 2002;37:791-820. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.00049 10.1111/1475-6773.00049
- Downar J, Goldman R, Pinto R, et al. The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis CMAJ 2017;189:E484-E493.
- Iglesias K, Burnand B, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. PACIC Instrument: disentangling dimensions using published validation models. Int J Qual Health Care 2014;26:250-260. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzu042 10.1093/intqhc/mzu042
- Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, Ed. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Columbia University Press 1949, pp. 191-205.
- Thornton M, Travis SS. Analysis of the reliability of the Modified Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:S127-S132. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.2.s127 10.1093/geronb/58.2.s127
- Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, et al. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr 2017;17:230. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2 10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2
Società Italiana di Gerontologia e Geriatria (SIGG) This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the CC-BY-NC-ND (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International) license. The article can be used by giving appropriate credit and mentioning the license, but only for non-commercial purposes and only in the original version. For further information: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en
Share and Cite
Damanti, S.; Ramirez, G.A.; Bozzolo, E.P.; Pedroso, C.D.; Deonette, G.; Brambilla, G.; Rizzi, B.; Lonati, G.; Tresoldi, M. A continuity care program in chronic, complex and frail patients: the PRO-CCF study protocol. J. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2024, 72, 60-65. https://doi.org/10.36150/2499-6564-N689
Damanti S, Ramirez GA, Bozzolo EP, Pedroso CD, Deonette G, Brambilla G, Rizzi B, Lonati G, Tresoldi M. A continuity care program in chronic, complex and frail patients: the PRO-CCF study protocol. Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2024; 72(2):60-65. https://doi.org/10.36150/2499-6564-N689
Chicago/Turabian StyleDamanti, Sarah, Giuseppe Alvise Ramirez, Enrica Paola Bozzolo, Carla Desa Pedroso, Gaia Deonette, Gianmaria Brambilla, Barbara Rizzi, Giada Lonati, and Moreno Tresoldi. 2024. "A continuity care program in chronic, complex and frail patients: the PRO-CCF study protocol" Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics 72, no. 2: 60-65. https://doi.org/10.36150/2499-6564-N689
APA StyleDamanti, S., Ramirez, G. A., Bozzolo, E. P., Pedroso, C. D., Deonette, G., Brambilla, G., Rizzi, B., Lonati, G., & Tresoldi, M. (2024). A continuity care program in chronic, complex and frail patients: the PRO-CCF study protocol. Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 72(2), 60-65. https://doi.org/10.36150/2499-6564-N689
