Cited by 159Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes

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

Open access
Boyd, Cynthia M., Reider, Lisa, Frey, Katherine, Scharfstein, Daniel, Leff, Bruce, Wolff, Jennifer, Groves, Carol, Karm, Lya +3 more·2010·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background The quality of health care for older Americans with chronic conditions is suboptimal.Objective To evaluate the effects of "Guided Care" on patient-reported quality of chronic illness care.Design Cluster-randomized controlled trial of Guided Care in 14 primary care teams.Participants Older patients of these teams were eligible to participate if, based on analysis of their recent insurance claims, they were at risk for incurring high health-care costs during the coming year. Small teams of physicians and their at-risk older patients were randomized to receive either Guided Care (GC) or usual care (UC).Intervention "Guided Care" is designed to enhance the quality of health care by integrating a registered nurse, trained in chronic care, into a primary care practice to work with 2-5 physicians in providing comprehensive chronic care to 50-60 multi-morbid older patients.Measurements Eighteen months after baseline, interviewers blinded to group assignment administered the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey by telephone. Logistic and linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on patient-reported quality of chronic illness care.Results Of the 13,534 older patients screened, 2,391 (17.7%) were eligible to participate in the study, of which 904 (37.8%) gave informed consent and were cluster-randomized. After 18 months, 95.3% and 92.2% of the GC and UC recipients who remained alive and eligible completed interviews. Compared to UC recipients, GC recipients had twice greater odds of rating their chronic care highly (aOR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.30-3.50, p = 0.003).Conclusion Guided Care improves self-reported quality of chronic health care for multi-morbid older persons.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-009-1192-5

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Chronically ill patients at higher risk of emergency room use, hospitalization, or major complications benefit from more intensive follow-up and clinical management by a care manager.

    “Chronically ill patients at higher risk of emergency room use, hospitalization, or major complications have been shown to benefit from more intensive follow-up and clinical management by a care manager.”
  • Clinical care management includes clinical assessment, medication management, self-management support, and care coordination, including among post-surgical cancer patients.

    “Clinical care management, generally provided by a health care professional such as a nurse or clinical pharmacist, includes clinical assessment, medication management, self-management support, and care coordination28,39-44, including among post-surgical cancer patients14,15,45.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boyd, C. M., Reider, L., Frey, K., Scharfstein, D., Leff, B., Wolff, J., Groves, C., Karm, L., Wegener, S., Marsteller, J., & Boult, C.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Boyd, Cynthia M.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2009-12-22
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
235-242
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2011882915
Cited by
159
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • John A. Hartford Foundation
  • Battelle
  • Hartford Foundation for Public Giving
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • University of Minnesota
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Jacob and Valeria Langeloth Foundation
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG032910)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Keywords
patient-reported quality of care, multimorbidity, older adults, chronic care, primary health care teams, nurse-led care, chronic care management, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Morbidity, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care, Quality of Health Care, Time Factors, Cluster Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review