Are integrated care models associated with improved drug safety in Swiss primary care? an observational analysis using healthcare claims data

Renato Farcher, Sereina M Graber, Stefan Boes and Carola A Huber

PLOS ONE, 2024, vol. 19, issue 9, 1-13

Abstract: Background: Integrated care models (ICMs) might be an effective strategy to improve patients’ quality of care. The aim of this study was to compare different ICMs such as family-doctor models, and a standard care model (SCM) regarding patients’ drug safety in Swiss primary care. Methods: We performed an observational study using health insurance claims data from patients who were continuously enrolled in an ICM or in a SCM between 2020 and 2021. ICMs included family-doctor model (FDM), family-doctor model light (FDM-light) and the telemedicine model (TM). Drug safety was assessed by the prescription of potentially inappropriate proton pump-inhibitors (PIPPI), opioids (PIO), medications (PIM), and polypharmacy. Propensity-score-weighted multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the association between different types of ICMs and drug safety. Results: Patients in FDM had significantly lower odds of receiving PIPPI (OR, 0.86; CI 95%, 0.83–0.89), PIO (OR, 0.81; CI 95%, 0.76–0.85), PIM (OR, 0.94; CI 95%, 0.91–0.97), and polypharmacy (OR, 0.94; CI 95%, 0.91–0.97) compared to patients in SCM. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was also lower in patients in TM and partly in FDM-light than in SCM. Persons enrolled in FDM were less likely to receive PIM (OR, 0.93; CI 95%, 0.89–0.97) and polypharmacy (OR, 0.94; CI 95%, 0.90–0.99) than those in FDM-light, whereas the odds of receiving PIPPI and polypharmacy were higher in FDM than in TM. Conclusion: ICMs were significantly associated with higher drug safety compared to SCM for most outcomes. Findings suggest that patients may benefit most from ICMs with a high degree of coordination or gatekeeping. ICM may represent an effective approach to improve patients’ drug safety and, thus, to reduce the risk of adverse events.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311099 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 11099&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0311099

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311099

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().