Search

Background: antipsychotic drugs are regularly prescribed as first-line treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms in persons with dementia although guidelines clearly prioritise non-pharmacological interventions., Objective: we investigated a person-centred care approach, which has been successfully evaluated in nursing homes in the UK, and adapted it to German conditions., Design: a 2-armed 12-month cluster-randomised controlled trial., Setting: nursing homes in East, North and West Germany., Methods: all prescribing physicians from both study arms received medication reviews for individual patients and were offered access to 2 h of continuing medical education. Nursing homes in the intervention group received educational interventions on person-centred care and a continuous supervision programme. Primary outcome: proportion of residents receiving at least one antipsychotic prescription after 12 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes: quality of life, agitated behaviour, falls and fall-related medical attention, a health economics evaluation and a process evaluation., Results: the study was conducted in 37 nursing homes with n = 1,153 residents (intervention group: n = 493; control group: n = 660). The proportion of residents with at least one antipsychotic medication changed after 12 months from 44.6% to 44.8% in the intervention group and from 39.8 to 33.3% in the control group. After 12 months, the difference in the prevalence was 11.4% between the intervention and control groups (95% confidence interval: 0.9-21.9; P = 0.033); odds ratio: 1.621 (95% confidence interval: 1.038-2.532)., Conclusions: the implementation of a proven person-centred care approach adapted to national conditions did not reduce antipsychotic prescriptions in German nursing homes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02295462., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Aim: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated., Methods and Results: A total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169-238) vs. €213 (182-243); range for difference (€-36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327-489) vs. €400 (345-455); range for difference (€-104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different., Conclusion: For all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Automated, daily Home Monitoring (HM) of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients can improve patient care. Yet, HM introduction to routine clinical practice is challenged by resource allocation for regular HM data review. We tested the feasibility, safety, workload, and clinical usefulness of a centralized HM model consisting of one monitor centre and nine satellite clinics., Methods and Results: Having no knowledge about patients' clinical data, a telemonitoring nurse (TN) and a supporting physician at the monitor centre screened and filtered HM data in 62 pacemaker and 59 ICD patients from nine satellite clinics for over 1 year. Basic screening of arrhythmic and technical events required 25.7 min (TN) and 0.7 min (physician) per working day, normalized for 100 patients monitored. Communication of relevant events to satellite clinics per email or phone required additional 4.3 min (TN) and 0.4 min (physician). Telemonitoring nurse also screened for abnormal developments in longitudinal data trends weekly for 3 months after implantation, and then monthly; one patient session lasted 4.0 ± 2.9 min. To handle transmission-gap notifications, TN needed additional 2.8 min daily. Satellite clinics received 231.3 observations from the monitor centre per 100 patients/year, which prompted 86.3 patient contacts or intensive HM screening periods by the satellite clinic itself (37.3% response rate), 51.7 extra follow-up controls (22.3%), and 30.1 clinical interventions (13.0%)., Conclusion: Centralized HM was feasible, reliable, safe, and clinically useful. Basic screening and communication of relevant arrhythmic and technical events required a total of 30 min (TN) and 1.1 min (physician) daily per 100 patients monitored.