on September 4, 2006
Published online before print September 4, 2006, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.177322
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on ,
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.
Accepted on ,
A Taxonomy for Disease Management. A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group
Harlan M. Krumholz MD, FAHA,
Key words: AHA Scientific Statements • disease management • chronic disease • delivery of health care • classification • heart failure
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, American College of Physicians Task Force on Compe, American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmona, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Diabetes Association, American Society of Hypertension, Association of Black Cardiologists, National Lipid Association, et al. ACCF/AHA/ACP 2009 competence and training statement: a curriculum on prevention of cardiovascular disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 29, 2009; 54(14): 1336 - 1363. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, C. N. Bairey Merz, M. J. Alberts, G. J. Balady, C. M. Ballantyne, K. Berra, H. R. Black, R. S. Blumenthal, M. H. Davidson, S. B. Fazio, et al. ACCF/AHA/ACP 2009 Competence and Training Statement: A Curriculum on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Competence and Training (Writing Committee to Develop a Competence and Training Statement on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease): Developed in Collaboration With the American Academy of Neurology; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; American College of Preventive Medicine; American College of Sports Medicine; American Diabetes Association; American Society of Hypertension; Association of Black Cardiologists; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Lipid Association; and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association Circulation, September 29, 2009; 120(13): e100 - e126. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Clark, L. A. Savard, and D. R. Thompson What is the strength of evidence for heart failure disease-management programs? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 28, 2009; 54(5): 397 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Sochalski, T. Jaarsma, H. M. Krumholz, A. Laramee, J. J.V. McMurray, M. D. Naylor, M. W. Rich, B. Riegel, and S. Stewart What Works In Chronic Care Management: The Case Of Heart Failure Health Aff., January 1, 2009; 28(1): 179 - 189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Spertus Evolving Applications for Patient-Centered Health Status Measures Circulation, November 11, 2008; 118(20): 2103 - 2110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. A. Bocchi, F. Cruz, G. Guimaraes, L. F. Pinho Moreira, V. S. Issa, S. M. Ayub Ferreira, P. R. Chizzola, G. E. C. Souza, S. Brandao, and F. Bacal Long-Term Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study Using Repetitive Education at Six-Month Intervals and Monitoring for Adherence in Heart Failure Outpatients: The REMADHE Trial Circ Heart Fail, July 1, 2008; 1(2): 115 - 124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Szecsenyi, T. Rosemann, S. Joos, F. Peters-Klimm, and A. Miksch German Diabetes Disease Management Programs Are Appropriate for Restructuring Care According to the Chronic Care Model: An evaluation with the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument Diabetes Care, June 1, 2008; 31(6): 1150 - 1154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Alter MD PhD Therapeutic lifestyle and disease-management interventions: pushing the scientific envelope Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 9, 2007; 177(8): 887 - 889. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. M. Davis, L. M. Vinci, T. M. Okwuosa, A. R. Chase, and E. S. Huang Cardiovascular Health Disparities: A Systematic Review of Health Care Interventions Med Care Res Rev, October 1, 2007; 64(5_suppl): 29S - 100S. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|