The Australian Health Care Homes trial: quality of care and patient outcomes. A propensity score‐matched cohort study
Duong T Tran,Michael O Falster,Jim Pearse,Deniza Mazevska,Patrick McElduff,Sallie Pearson,Kees C van Gool,Jane Hall,Louisa Jorm
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52266
2024-03-23
The Medical Journal of Australia
Abstract:Objective To assess the impact of the Health Care Homes (HCH) primary health care initiative on quality of care and patient outcomes. Design, setting Quasi‐experimental, matched cohort study; analysis of general practice data extracts and linked administrative data from ten Australian primary health networks, 1 October 2017 – 30 June 2021. Participants People with chronic health conditions (practice data extracts: 9811; linked administrative data: 10 682) enrolled in the HCH 1 October 2017 – 30 June 2019; comparison groups of patients receiving usual care (1:1 propensity score‐matched). Intervention Participants were involved in shared care planning, provided enhanced access to team care, and encouraged to seek chronic condition care at the HCH practice where they were enrolled. Participating practices received bundled payments based on clinical risk tier. Main outcome measures Access to care, processes of care, diabetes‐related outcomes, hospital service use, risk of death. Results During the first twelve months after enrolment, the mean numbers of general practitioner encounters (rate ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–1.17) and Medicare Benefits Schedule claims for allied health services (rate ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.24–1.33) were higher for the HCH than the usual care group. Annual influenza vaccinations (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17–1.22) and measurements of blood pressure (relative risk, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08–1.11), blood lipids (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16–1.21), glycated haemoglobin (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03–1.08), and kidney function (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11–1.15) were more likely in the HCH than the usual care group during the twelve months after enrolment. Similar rate ratios and relative risks applied in the second year. The numbers of emergency department presentations (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02–1.18) and emergency admissions (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04–1.22) were higher for the HCH group during the first year; other differences in hospital use were not statistically significant. Differences in glycaemic and blood pressure control in people with diabetes in the second year were not statistically significant. By 30 June 2021, 689 people in the HCH group (6.5%) and 646 in the usual care group (6.1%) had died (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96–1.20). Conclusions The HCH program was associated with greater access to care and improved processes of care for people with chronic diseases, but not changes in diabetes‐related outcomes, most measures of hospital use, or risk of death.
medicine, general & internal