SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The costliest participants to treat are those with chronic and serious, acute conditions that are often preventable. Developing programs aimed at patients with chronic conditions could be the key to getting control of health care costs. Disease management programs seek to alleviate some of this expense by better managing chronic illnesses and improving the overall health care of employees.
Disease management has been described as a comprehensive, integrated approach to care and reimbursement based on the natural course of a disease. It requires a management approach which brings together research evidence, best practice and inter-professional and inter-agency working. Starting with the ideal of continuity of care for individual patients, it implies structured co-ordination of care over time and across primary, secondary and tertiary settings. The appeal of disease management is that it promises reduced costs, combined with increased quality of care and patient satisfaction. But the concept is open to different definitions and interpretations and its effectiveness in improving UK healthcare is still largely untested. This Health Management Guide removes the mystique behind disease management and puts it in the context of existing knowledge and practice. Treating it as a concept, rather than a specific technique, it distinguishes between its different potential applications, offers practical guidance on implementation, and reports on how NHS organisations are taking it forward.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Disease management is a systematic approach to a health condition or a healthcare intervention that organises preventative, interventional and care approaches throughout the continuum of care and which measures outcomes in terms of populations, not individuals. Disease management's advantage over the current component system is that it stresses prevention over acute treatment of a chronic disease. Patients with better control of their chronic diseases will likely have a decrease in the use of emergency room and inpatient hospitalisation services, thereby improving clinical outcomes of patients. To achieve these goals, disease management uses pharmacoeconomic evaluations and outcomes measures to provide information that helps build formularies and clinical practice guidelines. Several problems exist in integrating pharmacoeconomic studies in disease management models, such as the need for more integrated information systems, standardisation and who should perform these evaluations. Some possible solutions will be addressed in this article. With greater emphasis being placed on controlling costs, the need for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the design of disease management models will continue to increase in the future.
Disease management is a comprehensive program that identifies a population of patients at risk, provides a coherent framework of coordinated care for these patients, and demonstrates improved outcomes. In applying disease management strategies to heart failure, there is clearly the technology to improve outcomes. The two main issues involved are influencing physician practice patterns and improving patient compliance. A successful disease management program in heart failure should include patient identification patient assessment, patient education and training, patient monitoring, and triage and acute intervention. With the advances in treatment of heart failure, we have the means to keep patients out of the hospital, maintain their functionality, and decrease mortality. The real issue, which is where disease management can help, is how to apply technology in an effective way to turn potential gains into real gains. The key is not to develop more technology, but to implement effectively the technology that exists.
Disease management is an approach to patient care that emphasizes coordinated, comprehensive care along the continuum of disease and across health care delivery systems. Evidence-based medicine is an approach to practice and teaching that integrates pathophysiological rationale, caregiver experience, and patient preferences with valid and current clinical research evidence. Using diabetes mellitus as an example, we describe the importance of evidence-based medicine to the development of disease management programs. We present a method for developing and implementing evidence-based clinical guidelines, clinical pathways, and algorithms and describe the creation of systems to measure and report processes and outcomes that could drive quality improvement in diabetes care. Multidisciplinary teams are ideally suited to develop, lead, and implement evidence-based disease management programs, since they play an essential role in the preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic decisions for patients with diabetes throughout the course of their disease.
Colorectal cancer is still a majorhealth and social problem. However, many important advances in treatment have been made in the last 4 to 5 years, and more optimism is now justified both among clinicians and patients. In surgically resectable disease, adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly demonstrated as able to increase overall survival in patients with colon cancer Dukes' stage C, whereas the role of medical treatment in patients with Dukes' stage B colon cancer is still controversial. At present, the standard regimen is bolus fluorouracil (5-FU) modulated by folinic acid (leucovorin) for 6 months. For rectal cancer, the best adjuvant treatment seems to be represented by radiotherapy (better if administered preoperatively) combined with chemotherapy (usually based on modulated or continuously infused 5-FU). In advanced disease, many new drugs have recently emerged: the most active regimens are those combining an optimal modality of 5-FU administration (i.e. continuous infusion) and one of the most active innovative compounds (irinotecan or oxaliplatin). The role of the oral drugs (e.g. tegafur/uracil, capecitabine) is still under investigation as is the combination of agents excluding 5-FU. It is now recognised that first-line treatment must be offered to all suitable pa- tients, even though asymptomatic, and that a second-line therapy (chiefly with irinotecan) is of value in many patients with cancer that progresses during treatment with 5-FU. From a strategic point of view, the best sequence of drugs/regimens has not yet been defined, while the duration and timing of chemotherapy is still a matter for clinical research. Finally, there is an increasing interest in the role of biological prognostic factors as an aid to a patient-tailored therapy, both in the adjuvant setting and in advanced disease. To achieve further progress in knowledge in this field, we strongly recommended that more and more patients are included in clinical trials.
Disease management efforts are becoming an important competitive strategy for providers and managed care plans alike. More than ever, purchasers of care want value from their health care dollars, and integrated delivery systems want to better coordinate care. Information technology will be crucial in implementing disease management programs.
Family context exerts a strong influence on disease management among patients with chronic disease, but it is not clear which aspects of family life are most influential. This study examined the linkages between patient-appraised couple emotion management (conflict resolution, expressiveness, and respect) and disease management (biological, morale/depression, quality of life, and behavioral) among a relatively understudied group, Chinese American patients with type 2 diabetes. Significant main effects were found between patient-appraised couple emotion management, especially conflict resolution, and the morale component of disease management, but not the biological or behavioral components; both diabetes-specific and general relationship qualities (marital satisfaction) were independently linked to disease management. Acculturation did not qualify the findings. Similarities among ethnic groups in family and disease management relationships may be more common than differences.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The increased development and implementation of disease management programs reflect attempts by a growing number of health plans to reduce costs while providing patients with high-quality care. Unfortunately, few of these programs are generating optimal cost savings. Instituting initiatives for a select group of plan members afflicted with a disease will not produce the positive results that a comprehensive population management program can. Through the integration, coordination, and management of all of a population's healthcare needs, diabetes population management programs are producing significantly greater cost savings than are other disease management programs, including those for diabetes.
Disease management programs provide new opportunities and roles for case managers to provide population-based healthcare to the chronically ill. This article identifies common components of disease management programs and examines roles assumed by case managers in disease management programs such as baseline assessment, performing economic analyses of diseases and their respective associated resource utilization, developing and/or implementing care guidelines or algorithms, educational interventions, disease management program implementation, and outcomes assessment. Areas of expertise needed to be an effective case manager in a disease management program are also identified.
Disease management programs provide new opportunities and roles for case managers to provide population-based healthcare to the chronically ill. This article identifies common components of disease management programs and examines roles assumed by case managers in disease management programs such as baseline assessment, performing economic analyses of diseases and their respective associated resource utilization, developing and/or implementing care guidelines or algorithms, educational interventions, disease management program implementation, and outcomes assessment. Areas of expertise needed to be an effective case manager in a disease management program are also identified.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Disease management has shown great promise as a means of reorganizing chronic care and optimizing patient outcomes. Nevertheless, disease management programs are widely heterogeneous and lack a shared definition of disease management, which limits our ability to compare and evaluate different programs. To address this problem, the American Heart Association's Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group developed a system of classification that can be used both to categorize and compare disease management programs and to inform efforts to identify specific factors associated with effectiveness. METHODS: The AHA Writing Group began with a conceptual model of disease management and its components and subsequently validated this model over a wide range of disease management programs. A systematic MEDLINE search was performed on the terms heart failure, diabetes, and depression, together with disease management, case management, and care management. The search encompassed articles published in English between 1987 and 2005. We then selected studies that incorporated (1) interventions designed to improve outcomes and/or reduce medical resource utilization in patients with heart failure, diabetes, or depression and (2) clearly defined protocols with at least 2 prespecified components traditionally associated with disease management. We analyzed the study protocols and used qualitative research methods to develop a disease management taxonomy with our conceptual model as the organizing framework. RESULTS: The final taxonomy includes the following 8 domains: (1) Patient population is characterized by risk status, demographic profile, and level of comorbidity. (2) Intervention recipient describes the primary targets of disease management intervention and includes patients and caregivers, physicians and allied healthcare providers, and healthcare delivery systems. (3) Intervention content delineates individual components, such as patient education, medication management, peer support, or some form of postacute care, that are included in disease management. (4) Delivery personnel describes the network of healthcare providers involved in the delivery of disease management interventions, including nurses, case managers, physicians, pharmacists, case workers, dietitians, physical therapists, psychologists, and information systems specialists. (5) Method of communication identifies a broad range of disease management delivery systems that may include in-person visitation, audiovisual information packets, and some form of electronic or telecommunication technology. (6) Intensity and complexity distinguish between the frequency and duration of exposure, as well as the mix of program components, with respect to the target for disease management. (7) Environment defines the context in which disease management interventions are typically delivered and includes inpatient or hospital-affiliated outpatient programs, community or home-based programs, or some combination of these factors. (8) Clinical outcomes include traditional, frequently assessed primary and secondary outcomes, as well as patient-centered measures, such as adherence to medication, self-management, and caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: This statement presents a taxonomy for disease management that describes critical program attributes and allows for comparisons across interventions. Routine application of the taxonomy may facilitate better comparisons of structure, process, and outcome measures across a range of disease management programs and should promote uniformity in the design and conduct of studies that seek to validate disease management strategies.