In many ways, the care of individuals with Parkinson disease does not meet their needs. Despite the documented benefits of receiving care from clinicians with Parkinson disease expertise, many patients (if not most) do not. Moreover, current care models frequently require older individuals with impaired mobility, cognition, and driving ability to be driven by overburdened caregivers to large, complex urban medical centers. Moving care to the patient's home would make Parkinson disease care more patient‐centered. Demographic factors, including aging populations, and social factors, such as the splintering of the extended family, will increase the need for home‐based care. Technological advances, especially the ability to assess and deliver care remotely, will enable the transition of care back to the home. However, despite its promise, this next generation of home‐based care will have to overcome barriers, including outdated insurance models and a technological divide. Once these barriers are addressed, home‐based care will increase access to high quality care for the growing number of individuals with Parkinson disease. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

No abstract

Objective: To reconstruct a sex-specific patient journey for Dutch persons with Parkinson's disease (PD) during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Method: We analyzed a national administrative medical claims database containing data of all patients newly diagnosed with PD between 2012 and 2016 in the Netherlands. We performed time-to-event analysis to identify the moments when patients received care from neurologists, allied healthcare therapists or general practitioners. We also extracted relevant clinical milestones: unexpected hospitalization for PD, pneumonia, orthopedic injuries, nursing home admission, and death. Using these data, we constructed the patient journey stratified for sex. Results: We included claims data of 13,518 men and 8,775 women with newly diagnosed PD in the Netherlands. While we found little difference in neurologist consultations, women visited general practitioners and physiotherapists significantly earlier and more often (all p -values < 0.001). After 5 years, 37.9% ( n = 3,326) of women had visited an occupational therapist and 18.5% ( n = 1,623) a speech and language therapist at least once. This was 33.1% ( n = 4,474) and 23.7% ( n = 3,204) for men. Approximately 2 years after diagnosis, PD-related complications (pneumonia, orthopedic injuries, and PD-related hospitalization) occurred for the first time (women: 1.8 years; men: 2.3 years), and after 5 years, 72.9% ( n = 6,397) of women, and 68.7% ( n = 9,287) of men had experienced at least one. Discussion: Considering the strengths and limitations of our methods, our findings suggest that women experience complications and access most healthcare services sooner after diagnosis and more frequently than men. The identified sex differences extend the debate about phenotypical differences in PD between men and women.

Background: Optimal care for Parkinson’s disease (PD) requires coordination and collaboration between providers within a complex care network. Individual patients have personalised networks of their own providers, creating a unique informal network of providers who treat (‘share’) the same patient. These ‘patient-sharing networks’ differ in density, ie, the number of identical patients they share. Denser patient-sharing networks might reflect better care provision, since providers who share many patients might have made efforts to improve their mutual care delivery. We evaluated whether the density of these patient-sharing networks affects patient outcomes and costs. Methods: We analysed medical claims data from all PD patients in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016. We focused on seven professional disciplines that are commonly involved in Parkinson care. We calculated for each patient the density score: the average number of patients that each patient’s providers shared. Density scores could range from 1.00 (which might reflect poor collaboration) to 83.00 (which might reflect better collaboration). This score was also calculated at the hospital level by averaging the scores for all patients belonging to a specific hospital. Using logistic and linear regression analyses we estimated the relationship between density scores and health outcomes, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs. Results: The average density score varied considerably (average 6.7, SD 8.2). Adjusted for confounders, higher density scores were associated with a lower risk of PD-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.901; P<.001) and with lower healthcare costs (coefficients: -0.018, P=.005). Higher density scores were associated with more frequent involvement of neurologists (coefficient 0.068), physiotherapists (coefficient 0.052) and occupational therapists (coefficient 0.048) (P values all <.001). Conclusion: Patient sharing networks showed large variations in density, which appears unwanted as denser networks are associated with better outcomes and lower costs.