Search

Purpose: This article describes the content of and adherence with a nurse-led home visiting programme (Dutch Geriatric Intervention Programme; DGIP) for vulnerable older people. The randomised Dutch EASYcare Study showed positive patient endpoints for DGIP. Describing content and adherence is rarely performed, but highly important for understanding the results of trials., Method: DGIP is a complex multicomponent intervention tailored to the patients' needs. This process evaluation describes these components and patient characteristics and creates meaningful clusters of these specific components using hierarchical cluster analysis. Both patient/caregiver and physician adherence rates and possible predictors were investigated., Results: In line with the heterogeneity among the subjects, the individual treatment plans turned out to be highly tailored. Cluster analysis identified five clusters of intervention components. DGIP turned out to be largely unsuitable for one group of very vulnerable older participants in urgent need of more care. Overall, physician adherence was 75% and was better than patient adherence (51% complete/partial adherence). Adherence levels increased when both patients, caregivers and physicians received recommendations., Conclusions: The content of a multicomponent tailored home-visiting programme was very diverse, matching the heterogeneity among frail elderly subjects. Detailed process and cluster analysis helped to understand the content of the intervention, sharpen target criteria and identify possibilities to improve adherence.

Objective: caregiver effects of geriatric care models focusing primarily at the patient have not been consistently studied. We studied caregiver effects of a nurse-led comprehensive geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) programme for community-dwelling frail older people that showed-in a randomised comparison with usual care--health-related quality of life benefits for the care receivers., Methods: this randomised trial included 110 caregiver/patient dyads who were followed up for 6 months. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat analyses of caregiver burden assessed with Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI; 0-88; higher means more burden). Preplanned subgroup analyses were conducted for cognition, living arrangement and patient/caregiver co-residence., Results: overall, perceived caregiver burden showed no significant differences between study groups in changes over time. However, perceived burden was at baseline more than eight points higher in caregivers sharing a household with patients (n = 23) compared to caregivers living separately (n = 87). The intervention performed better in caregivers living together with the patient than in caregivers living separately (P for interaction = 0.04). Co-resident caregivers experienced six-Zarit point improvement compared with four-point deterioration in the non-co-resident caregivers., Conclusions: GEM at home benefited patients, but maybe not caregivers. Caregiver effects are related to whether caregivers live with the patient or not.

Background: There is growing interest in geriatric care for community-dwelling older people. There are, however, relatively few reports on the economics of this type of care. This article reports about the cost-effectiveness of the Dutch Geriatric Intervention Program (DGIP) compared to usual care in frail older people at 6-month follow-up from a health care system's point of view., Methods: We conducted this economic evaluation in an observer-blind randomized controlled trial (Dutch EASYcare Study: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00105378). Difference in treatment effect was calculated as the difference in proportions of successfully treated patients (prevented functional decline accompanied by improved well-being). Incremental treatment costs were calculated as the difference in mean total care costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as total cost per successful treatment. Bootstrap methods were used to determine confidence intervals (CI) for these measures., Results: The average cost of the intervention under study (DGIP) was 998 euros (95% CI, 888-1108). The increment in total cost resulting from DGIP was a little over 761 euros (-3336 to 4687). Hospitalization and institutionalization costs were less; home care, adult day care, and meals-on-wheels costs were higher. There was a significant difference in proportions of successful treatments of 22.3% (4.3-41.4). The number needed to treat was approximately 4.7 (2.3-18.0). The ICER is 3418 euros per successful treatment (-21,458 to 45,362). The new treatment is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of 34,000 euros., Conclusion: The results of this economic evaluation suggest that DGIP is an effective addition to primary care for frail older people at a reasonable cost.

Background: The effectiveness of community-based geriatric intervention models for vulnerable older adults is controversial. We evaluated a problem-based multidisciplinary intervention targeting vulnerable older adults at home that promised efficacy through better timing and increased commitment of patients and primary care physicians. This study compared the effects of this new model to usual care., Methods: Primary care physicians referred older people for problems with cognition, nutrition, behavior, mood, or mobility. One hundred fifty-one participants (mean age 82.2 years, 74.8% women) were included in a pseudocluster randomized trial with 6-month follow-up for the primary outcomes. Eighty-five participants received the new intervention, and 66 usual care. In the intervention arm, geriatric nurses visited patients at home for geriatric assessment and management in cooperation with primary care physicians and geriatricians. Modified intention-to-treat analyses focused on differences between treatment arms in functional abilities (Groningen Activity Restriction Scale-3) and mental well-being (subscale mental health Medical Outcomes Study [MOS]-20), using a mixed linear model., Results: After 3 months, treatment arms showed significant differences in favor of the new intervention. Functional abilities improved 2.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-4.2) and well-being 5.8 points (95% CI, 0.1-11.4). After 6 months, the favorable effect increased for well-being (9.1; 95% CI, 2.4-15.9), but the effect on functional abilities was no longer significant (1.6; 95% CI, -0.7 to 3.9)., Conclusions: This problem-based geriatric intervention improved functional abilities and mental well-being of vulnerable older people. Problem-based interventions can increase the effectiveness of primary care for this population.

Background: Because of their complex clinical presentations and needs frail elderly people require another approach than people who age without many complications. Several inpatient geriatric health services have proven effectiveness in frail persons. However, the wish to live independently and policies that promote independent living as an answer to population aging call for community intervention models for frail elderly people. Maybe models such as preventive home visits, comprehensive geriatric assessment, and intermediate care qualify, but their efficacy is controversial, especially in frail elderly persons living in the community. With the Dutch EASYcare Study Geriatric Intervention Programme (DGIP) we developed a model to study effectiveness of problem based community intervention models in frail elderly people., Methods/design: DGIP is a community intervention model for frail elderly persons where the GP refers elderly patients with a problem in cognition, mood, behaviour, mobility, and nutrition. A geriatric specialist nurse applies a guideline-based intervention with a limited number of follow up visits. The intervention starts with the application of the EASYcare instrument for geriatric screening. The EASYcare instrument assesses (instrumental) activities of daily life, cognition, mood, and includes a goal setting item. During the intervention the nurse regularly consults the referring GP and a geriatrician. Effects on functional performance (Groningen Activity Restriction Scale), health related quality of life (MOS-20), and carer burden (Zarit Burden Interview) are studied in an observer blinded randomised controlled trial. 151 participants were randomised over two treatment arms--DGIP and regular care--using pseudo cluster randomisation. We are currently performing the follow up visits. These visits are planned three and six months after inclusion. Process measures and cost measures will be recorded. Intention to treat analyses will focus on post intervention differences between treatment groups., Discussion: The design of a trial evaluating the effects of a community intervention model for frail elderly people was presented. The problem-based participant selection procedure satisfied; few patients that the GP referred did not meet our eligibility criteria. The use of standard terminology makes detailed insight into the contents of our intervention possible using terminology others can understand well.