Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of case management (Evercare) on frail elderly patients: controlled before and after analysis of quantitative outcome data

Open access
Gravelle, Hugh, Dusheiko, Mark, Sheaff, Rod, Sargent, Penny, Boaden, Ruth, Pickard, Susan, Parker, Stuart, Roland, Martin·2007·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact on outcomes in patients of the Evercare approach to case management of elderly people. DESIGN: Practice level before and after analysis of hospital admissions data with control group. SETTING: Nine primary care trusts in England that, in 2003-5, piloted case management of elderly people selected as being at high risk of emergency admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of emergency admission, emergency bed days, and mortality from April 2001 to March 2005 in 62 Evercare practices and 6960-7695 control practices in England (depending on the analysis being carried out). RESULTS: The intervention had no significant effect on rates of emergency admission (increase 16.5%, (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 38.7%), emergency bed days (increase 19.0%, -5.3% to 43.2%), and mortality (increase 34.4%, -1.7% to 70.3%) for a high risk population aged >65 with a history of two or more emergency admissions in the preceding 13 months. For the general population aged > or =65 effects on the rates of emergency admission (increase 2.5%, -2.1% to 7.0%), emergency bed days (decrease -4.9%, -10.8% to 1.0%), and mortality (increase 5.5%, -3.5% to 14.5%) were also non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Case management of frail elderly people introduced an additional range of services into primary care without an associated reduction in hospital admissions. This may have been because of identification of additional cases. Employment of community matrons is now a key feature of case management policy in the NHS in England. Without more radical system redesign this policy is unlikely to reduce hospital admissions.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmj.39020.413310.55

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Gravelle, H., Dusheiko, M., Sheaff, R., Sargent, P., Boaden, R., Pickard, S., Parker, S., & Roland, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-11-15
Volume
334
Issue
7583
Pages
31
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2077851275
Cited by
254
References
2
FWCI
46.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of case management (Evercare) on frail elderly patients: controlled before and after analysis of quantitative outcome data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39020.413310.55
The paper
Gravelle, H., Dusheiko, M., Sheaff, R., Sargent, P., Boaden, R., Pickard, S., Parker, S., & Roland, M. (2007). Impact of case management (Evercare) on frail elderly patients: controlled before and after analysis of quantitative outcome data. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39020.413310.55

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.