Back

Identifying High-Need Patient Profiles That Respond to Intensive Care Management: Insights from the Camden Health Care Hotspotting RCT

Prakash, S.; Wiest, D.; Balasubramanian, H. J.; Truchil, A.

2026-03-09 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.03.06.26347776 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEvaluations of complex care programs for high-need patients have yielded mixed results, and identifying patient subgroups may reveal differential intervention effects. This study aimed to use latent class analysis (LCA) to identify high-need patient subgroups within a randomized trial of the Camden Coalitions Core Model and to examine differences in healthcare utilization and care team engagement. Methods & FindingsWe conducted a post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02090426) involving 780 adults aged 18 [-] 80 years in Camden, New Jersey, who had multiple chronic conditions and frequent hospitalizations. Participants were assigned to receive multidisciplinary care management delivered by nurses, social workers, and community health workers for 3 [-] 4 months following hospital discharge, or to usual care. LCA incorporated medical, behavioral, and social risk factors, as well as prior hospital utilization, to identify patient subgroups. Outcomes included inpatient readmissions and emergency department visits over two consecutive 6-month post-discharge periods, along with service hours delivered to intervention patients. Four patient classes emerged: (1) Behavioral Health & Housing Instability, (2) Multi-system Medical Complexity, (3) Pulmonary Health & Substance Use, and (4) Lower Overall Complexity. In the second 6-month follow-up period, intervention patients had lower readmission rates compared with controls (-6.4 percentage points; 90% CI, -12.2 to -0.5). Subgroup differences included reduced readmissions in Class 4 and fewer emergency department visits in Class 1. Service intensity varied across classes, with Class 1 receiving the highest number of staff hours and Class 2 the lowest. ConclusionPatient segmentation revealed meaningful variation in healthcare utilization outcomes and care team engagement across high-need subgroups, suggesting that tailoring complex care interventions to specific patient profiles may improve program effectiveness and equity.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.8%
2
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.9%
3
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.4%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.9%
6
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
9
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
10
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
11
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
12
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
14
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
17
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
19
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
21
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
25
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
26
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
28
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
29
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%