Appendix A. The Evidence Base for the Chronic Care Model
History of the Chronic Care Model
The initial evidence upon which the Chronic Care Model was based came from evaluations
of interventions to improve care. For example, the MacColl Institute participated in a
Cochrane Collaboration review of interventions to improve diabetes care in primary care,72 These reviews demonstrated the need for the integrated set of changes called for by the
Chronic Care Model. A more recent meta-analysis by Tsai and colleagues confirms these earlier
findings and extends them to other conditions.73
Several healthcare organizations began adopting the Chronic Care Model around the turn of
the 21st century either through participation in the Improving Chronic Illness Care (ICIC)-
sponsored collaboratives or on their own. The second body of evidence about the
effectiveness of the Chronic Care Model comes from observational evaluations of that
experience. Several early chronic care collaboratives have been evaluated and generally
document improvements. Investigators at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) studied the quality of diabetes care in 134 managed Medicare organizations
participating in a diabetes performance measurement program.74 Fleming and colleagues
used an organizational assessment tool based on the Chronic Care Model to compare high-
(top quartile) and low- (bottom quartile) performing organizations. They found that high-performing
organizations were much more likely to organize care delivery in accordance with
the Chronic Care Model. They then identified specific systemic features that characterized
high-performing organizations and differentiated performance. These included computerized
reminders, practitioner involvement on quality improvement teams, guidelines supported by
academic detailing, formal self-management programs, and a registry.
Feifer and colleagues studied the relationship between Chronic Care Model implementation and
clinical outcomes in nine community-based practices.75 They found a strong correlation
between Chronic Care Model implementation and performance measures for diabetes and
cardiovascular disease. Most recently, two randomized trials have tested interventions that
explicitly used the Chronic Care Model to change primary care for asthma76 and diabetes.77 The
Chronic Care Model-based intervention significantly improved asthma quality of life, and the
diabetes intervention significantly improved glycemic and lipid control compared to usual care.
Return to Contents
Learning from Experience: The Case for a Toolkit
Our experience and a growing body of evidence suggests that implementation of the Chronic
Care Model needs to be part of a explicit program of quality improvement, supported by
leadership and designed to facilitate learning between practices. In the past, the structure
of these improvement efforts frequently has taken the form of Breakthrough Series
Collaboratives, which bring together dozens of teams to learn from each other at periodic learning sessions. They then return to their systems to test incremental improvements using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. One of the most massive national collaborative efforts was the landmark Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC) program sponsored by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) beginning in 1998. In concert with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, MacColl/ICIC conducted chronic care Breakthrough Series Collaboratives in diabetes, congestive heart failure, asthma, and depression that were attended by pilot community health centers (CHCs) selected by HRSA.
These early collaboratives demonstrated that the Chronic Care Model was a feasible and useful
guide to practice redesign and led to measurable improvements in the quality of care.78 In
addition, this experience led to two major observations. First, the collaborative structure,
although effective as a learning tool, was expensive in terms of staff time and meeting costs.
A search began for other, less lengthy and burdensome improvement methods that were still
effective. The idea of a manual, or toolkit, first arose in the context of this work.
Second, many of the changes inspired by HDC participation did not sufficiently consider the
efficiency and financial health of the participating CHCs. Many changes were made in ways
that clearly were not going to be sustainable. To participate in the HDC, CHCs subsidized staff
involvement in the collaborative and made new investments in information technology and
staff. In addition, planned care often resulted in longer visits, more extensive counseling, or
group visits for which reimbursement was often difficult to obtain. Huang and Chin evaluated
an early diabetes HDC collaborative and found that implementation of the Chronic Care Model
cost the CHC an additional $6.41 to $23.93 per patient.79 This represents a significant portion
of a CHC budget. These observations convinced the leaders of the HDC that "a primary care
practice is at risk if they simply add the planned care work to their existing systems without
stepping back and reengineering their organization."
The pressing need for change, the early evidence of the promise and the limitations of
collaboratives, and the requirement to consider both clinical and financial changes all led to
the recognition of the need for a coherent set of tools that practices could use. This toolkit
is an attempt to fill that need.
Return to Contents
Proceed to Next Section