Disease management projects and the Chronic CareModel in action: Baseline qualitative research

Background: Disease management programs, especially those based on the Chronic Care Model (CCM),are increasingly common in the Netherlands. While disease management programs have beenwell-researched quantitatively and economically, less qualitative research has been done. Theoverall aim of the study is to explore how disease management programs are implementedwithin primary care settings in the Netherlands; this paper focuses on the early developmentand implementation stages of five disease management programs in the primary care setting,based on interviews with project leadership teams. Methods: At the five sites, eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted at the five selected siteswith sixteen professionals interviewed; all project leaders were interviewed. The interviewsfocused on each project's chosen chronic illness (diabetes, eating disorders, COPD, multimorbidity,CVRM) and project plan, barriers to development and implementation, the projectleaders' action and reactions, as well as their roles and responsibilities, and diseasemanagement strategies. Analysis was inductive and interpretive, based on the content of theinterviews. After analysis, the results of this research on disease management programs andthe Chronic Care Model are viewed from a traveling technology framework. Results: This analysis uncovered four themes that can be mapped to disease management and theChronic Care Model: (1) changing the health care system, (2) patient-centered care, (3)technological systems and barriers, and (4) integrating projects into the larger system. Projectleaders discussed the paths, both direct and indirect, for transforming the health care systemto one that addresses chronic illness. Patient-centered care was highlighted as needed and aparadigm shift for many. Challenges with technological systems were pervasive. Projectleaders managed the expenses of a traveling technology, including the social, financial, andadministration involved. Conclusions: At the sites, project leaders served as travel guides, assisting and overseeing the programs asthey traveled from the global plans to local actions. Project leaders, while hypothetically incontrol of the programs, in fact shared control of the traveling of the programs with patients,clinicians, and outside consultants. From this work, we can learn what roadblocks andexpenses occur while a technology travels, from a project leader's point of view.

• View at Publisher
• View at Pubmed
• View at Scopus
• View at Web of Science

Free Full Text ( Final Version , 204kb )