Abstract

Background: There is a need for effective and cost-effective interprofessional care models that support older people to maintain their quality of life (QoL) and physical performance to live longer independently in their own homes.

Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate effectiveness, QoL and physical performance, and cost-utility of a people-centred care model (PCCM), including the contribution of clinically trained pharmacists, compared with that of usual care in primary care.

Methods: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a two-year follow-up was conducted. The participants were multimorbid community-living older people, aged ≥75 years. The intervention comprised an at-home patient interview, health review, pharmacist-led clinical medication review, an interprofessional team meeting, and nurse-led care coordination and health support. At the baseline and at the 1-year and 2-year follow-ups, QoL (SF-36, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and physical performance (SPPB, Short Performance Physical Battery) were measured. Additionally, a physical dimension component summary in the SF-36 was calculated. The SF-36 data were transformed into SF-6D scores to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Healthcare resource use were collected and transformed into costs. A healthcare payer perspective was adopted. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and one-way sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results: No statistically or clinically significant differences were observed between the usual care (n = 126) and intervention group (n = 151) patients in their QoL; at the 2-year follow-up the mean difference was −0.02, (95 % CI -0.07; 0.04,p = 0.56). While the mean difference between the groups in physical performance at the 2-year follow-up was −1.02, (−1.94;-0.10,p = 0.03), between the physical component summary scores it was −7.3, (−15.2; 0.6,p = 0.07). The ICER was −73 638€/QALY, hence, the developed PCCM dominated usual care, since it was more effective and less costly.

Conclusions: The cost-utility analysis showed that the PCCM including pharmacist-led medication review dominated usual care. However, it had no effect on QoL and the effect towards physical performance remained unclear.