1 

BRI Care Consultation

Program Description 

BRI Care Consultation is an intervention for adults with a chronic physical or mental health condition or disability 

and a primary caregiver (family member or friend) who assists the adult with daily activities, tasks, and healthrelated discussions. The intervention links and coordinates health care, community, and family services for 

clients (both the patient and the primary caregiver), organizes family and friends in assisting in care tasks, and 

provides emotional support. 

Trained care consultants (nurses, social workers, and others with at least a bachelor’s degree in a human 

services field) deliver the intervention by phone as well as by mail and email. They establish an ongoing 

relationship with clients and offer personalized coaching while following a standardized protocol focused on 

helping to find solutions to priority problems of both the adult with chronic health problems and the primary 

caregiver. If the adult is too impaired to participate in care and/or care-related decisions, the care consultant 

works exclusively with the primary caregiver. Similarly, adults who do not have a caregiver are the sole focus of 

the program. 

The intervention consists of three components delivered concurrently. First, clients participate in an initial 

assessment administered by phone. The assessment addresses several domains, with questions for both the 

adult with chronic health problems (e.g., arranging services, insurance benefits, depression, financial concerns, 

medications, personal care and home safety, social isolation) and the caregiver (e.g., capacity to provide care, 

emotional and physical health strain, sleep). Next, to address unmet needs, the care consultant and clients 

create an action plan with specific and time-sensitive tasks for the adult with health problems (e.g., ask 

physician about medication side effects) and caregiver (e.g., install grab bars in bathroom). Action steps may 

also be created for the care consultant, other family members, or service providers. The third component is 

maintenance and support. Care consultants maintain a relationship with clients through regular phone contact, 

clients are reassessed in all domains at least once between month 5 and 12 and then annually for the duration 

of enrollment in the program, and new action steps are formulated as needed throughout the period of 

enrollment. Care consultants use a Web-based reporting system called the Care Consultation Information 

System (CCIS) to track all client information, assessments, action plans, completed tasks, and ongoing contacts. 

A modified version of the intervention—Partners in Dementia Care (PDC)—is also available and is delivered by a 

community agency in partnership with health care organizations such as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) and managed care providers. 

The studies reviewed for this summary involved adults ages 55 and older with Alzheimer’s disease, other 

dementias, or memory loss, and their caregivers. The intervention has also been used with adults who have one 

or more chronic conditions, such as depression or physical frailty. 
2 

Descriptive Information 

Areas of Interest 

 Caregiver and family support

 Health and wellness 

 Long-term services and supports 

 Mental health promotion 

Outcomes 

Review Date: August 2015 

 Patient perception of unmet needs 

 Caregiver perception of unmet needs 

 Patient perception of relationship strain 

 Caregiver strain 

 Patient depression 

 Caregiver depression 

 Patient utilization of health care services 

Ages 

 18–25 (Young adult) 

 26–49 (Adult) 

 50–60 (Older adult) 

 61–74 (Older adult) 

 75–84 (Older adult) 

 85+ (Older adult) 

Genders  Female 

 Male 

Races/Ethnicities 

 Black or African American 

 Hispanic or Latino 

 White 

 Race/ethnicity unspecified 

Settings 

 Health center 

 Managed care organization 

 Health care system 

 Outpatient 

 Community-based organization 

Geographic Locations 

 Urban 

 Suburban 

 Rural and/or frontier 

Funding/CER Studies  Partially/fully funded by Administration on Aging 

 Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies 

Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the 

developer. 

Implementation History 

The initial implementation of BRI Care Consultation was in 2009, which followed 

completion of five controlled research studies. Four translational studies using a preand posttest design and no control group also have been conducted. Thirty-two sites 

have delivered the intervention, reaching approximately 1,800 families, mostly 

composed of an older adult with chronic illnesses and a primary caregiver. The 
3 

program has been implemented by Area Agencies on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association 

chapters, VA medical centers, managed care organizations, senior centers, 

community service agencies, and other types of organizations in Alabama, Georgia, 

Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. Formal evaluations have 

been or are being completed in 13 implementation sites.

Adaptations No population- or culture-specific adaptations were identified by the developer. 

Quality of Research 

Review Date: August 2015 

Documents Reviewed 

The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of contact can provide 

information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability of additional materials, including those from 

more recent studies that may have been conducted. 

Study 1 

Bass, D. M., Clark, P. A., Looman, W. J., McCarthy, C. A., & Eckert, S. (2003). The Cleveland Alzheimer’s Managed 

Care Demonstration: Outcomes after 12 months of implementation. Gerontologist, 43(1), 73–85. PubMed 

abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12604748 

Clark, P. A., Bass, D. M., Looman, W. J., McCarthy, C. A., & Eckert, S. (2004). Outcomes for patients with 

dementia from the Cleveland Alzheimer’s Managed Care Demonstration. Aging and Mental Health, 8(1), 40–51. 

PubMed abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14690867 

Study 2 

Bass, D. M., Judge, K. S., Maslow, K., Wilson, N. L., Morgan, R. O., McCarthy, C. A., . . . Kunik, M. E. (2015). Impact 

of the care coordination program “Partners in Dementia Care” on veterans’ hospital admissions and emergency 

department visits. Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions, 1(1), 13–22. 

Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2015.03.003 

Bass, D. M., Judge, K. S., Snow, A. L., Wilson, N. L., Morgan, R. O., Maslow, K., . . . Kunik, M. E. (2014). A 

controlled trial of Partners in Dementia Care: Veteran outcomes after six and twelve months. Alzheimer’s 

Research and Therapy, 6(1), 9. PubMed abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24764496 

Study 3 

Bass, D. M., Judge, K. S., Snow, A. L., Wilson, N. L., Morgan, R., Looman, W. J., . . . Kunik, M. E. (2013). Caregiver 

outcomes of Partners in Dementia Care: Effect of a care coordination program for veterans with dementia and 

their family members and friends. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 61(8), 1377–1386. PubMed 

abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23869899 
4 

Supplementary Materials 

Judge, K. S., Bass, D. M., Snow, A. L., Wilson, N. L., Morgan, R., Looman, W. J., . . . Kunik, M. E. (2011). Partners in 

Dementia Care: A care coordination intervention for individuals with dementia and their family caregivers. 

Gerontologist, 51(2), 261–272. PubMed abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21242317 

Morgan, R. O., Bass, D. M., Judge, K. S., Liu, C. F., Wilson, N., Snow, A. L., . . . Kunik, M. E. (2015). A break-even 

analysis for dementia care collaboration: Partners in Dementia Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(6), 

804–809. PubMed abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25666216 

Outcomes 

Outcome 1: Patient perception of unmet needs 

Description of Measures 

Perception of unmet needs on the part of adults with chronic conditions (hereafter 

referred to as “patients”) was measured using a survey developed by the researchers 

based on a survey from prior studies. The instrument addressed eight domains of 

needs: understanding dementia, daily living tasks, accessing VA and other services, 

legal and financial issues, organizing family care, alternative living arrangements, 

emotional support, and medications. For each of 24 yes/no items, patients indicated 

whether they needed more help or information, which was defined as an unmet need. 

Trained interviewers conducted structured telephone interviews with patients at 

baseline and 6 and 12 months after baseline. The interviewed patients were limited to 

those who could pass a baseline screening using an adapted version of the short 

Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test.

Key Findings 

Participants were individuals with dementia and their caregivers. Communities were 

randomly assigned such that participants in two communities received a modified 

version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 months and those 

in three other communities received usual care. The patients were 60 years and older, 

had at least one dementia diagnosis in their medical record, resided in the community 

at the start of the study, and were veterans receiving primary care from a VA medical 

center. Findings included the following: 

 From baseline to 6-month followup, among patients with more cognitive 

impairment, those in the intervention group had a greater decrease in perceived 

unmet needs than those in the comparison group (44.1% vs. 7.8%; p = .02). 

 From baseline to 12-month followup, among patients with more functional 

impairment, those in the intervention group had a 64.8% decrease in perceived 

unmet needs and those in the comparison group had a 3.2% increase (p < .01). 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 2 

Study Designs Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.3 
5 

Outcome 2: Caregiver perception of unmet needs 

Description of Measures 

Caregiver perception of unmet needs was assessed using a survey developed by the 

researchers based on a survey from prior studies. The instrument addressed eight 

domains of needs: understanding dementia, care tasks, assessing VA and other 

services, legal and financial issues, organizing family care, alternate living 

arrangements, emotional support, and medications and medical followup. For each of 

39 yes/no items, caregivers indicated whether they needed more help or information, 

which was defined as an unmet need. 

Items began with the question, “Do you need more information about or help 

with . . . ?” Sample items included “trying things that may prevent your 

(RELATIONSHIP)’s memory problems from getting worse” (understanding dementia), 

“how to best manage your (RELATIONSHIP)’s personal care such as bathing and 

dressing” (care tasks), “getting transportation to locations where services are 

provided” (assessing VA and other services), “dealing with legal issues related to your 

(RELATIONSHIP)’s illness such as updating a will” (legal and financial issues), “getting 

family or friends to accept that your (RELATIONSHIP) has memory problems” 

(organizing family care), “getting information about assisted living facilities or nursing 

homes” (alternative living arrangements), “finding someone to talk with who 

understands your situation” (emotional support), and “scheduling follow-up visits 

with your (RELATIONSHIP)’s doctors” (medications and medical followup). 

Trained interviewers conducted structured telephone interviews with caregivers at 

baseline and 6 and 12 months after baseline. 

Key Findings 

Participants were patients with dementia and their caregivers. Communities were 

randomly assigned such that participants in two communities received a modified 

version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 months and those 

in three other communities received usual care. The patients were 60 years and older, 

had at least one dementia diagnosis in the medical record, resided in the community 

at the start of the study, and were veterans receiving primary care from a VA medical 

center. Findings include the following: 

 From baseline to 6-month followup, caregivers from the intervention group had a 

significantly greater decrease in perceived unmet needs than those in the 

comparison group (45.7% vs. 27.6%; p = .01). In addition, among caregivers 

assisting a more cognitively impaired patient with dementia, those in the 

intervention group had a significantly greater decrease in perceived unmet needs 

than those in the comparison group (54.2% vs. 24.6%; p < .001). 

 From baseline to 12-month followup, caregivers in the intervention group had a 

significantly greater decrease in perceived unmet needs than those in the 

comparison group (35.4% vs. 21.9%; p < .001). 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 3 

Study Designs Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.3 
6 

Outcome 3: Patient perception of relationship strain 

Description of Measures 

Patient perception of relationship strain was measured using a survey developed by 

the researchers based on a survey from prior studies. Four dichotomous items asked 

whether, because of their health problems and need for assistance, patients felt that 

their caregiver tried to manipulate them, felt that the relationship with the caregiver 

was strained, felt resentful toward the caregiver, or felt angry toward the caregiver. 

Trained interviewers conducted structured telephone interviews with patients at 

baseline and 6 and 12 months after baseline. The interviewed patients were limited to 

those who could pass a baseline screening using an adapted version of the short 

Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test. 

Key Findings 

Participants were patients with dementia and their caregivers. Communities were 

randomly assigned such that participants in two communities received a modified 

version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 months and those 

in three other communities received usual care. The patients were 60 years and older, 

had at least one dementia diagnosis in their medical record, resided in the community 

at the start of the study, and were veterans receiving primary care from a VA medical 

center. From baseline to 6-month followup, among patients with more functional 

impairment, patients in the intervention group had a greater decrease in relationship 

strain than those in the comparison group (80% vs. 25%; p = .05). 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 2 

Study Designs Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.3 

Outcome 4: Caregiver strain 

Description of Measures 

Caregiver strain was assessed using a survey developed by the researchers based on a 

survey from prior studies. One study used a 14-item version, and the second used a 12-

item version. Both included items related to three perceived negative effects specific 

to caregiving: relationship strain between patients and caregivers (e.g., “I felt angry 

toward him/her,” “I felt appreciated for what I did”), health deterioration or any 

adverse health effects from caregiving (e.g., “I seemed to get sick more often,” “I 

was bothered more by aches and pains”), and role captivity or feelings of being 

trapped in the caregiving role (e.g., “I wished I were free to lead my own life,” “I 

wished I could just run away from this situation”). Response categories ranged from 

0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). 

In one study, trained, blinded research staff conducted structured telephone 

interviews with caregivers at baseline and 12 months after baseline. In the other 

study, trained interviewers conducted telephone interviews with caregivers at 

baseline and 6 and 12 months after baseline. 
7 

Key Findings 

In one study, Kaiser Permanente patients with diagnosed dementia or memory loss 

and their caregivers were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison 

group. Eligible patients were 55 years or older, residing outside of a nursing home at 

the start of the study, and living in the Cleveland Alzheimer’s Association chapter 

service area. The intervention group received usual managed care services and 12 

months of BRI Care Consultation provided by the Association. Comparison group 

participants received usual managed care services and could independently contact 

the Association for services other than BRI Care Consultation. At 12-month followup: 

 Among nonspouse caregivers, those in the intervention group had significantly

less relationship strain than those in the comparison group (p = .02; 26.1% lower 

relationship strain). 

 Among caregivers who used other Alzheimer’s Association chapter programs 

outside of BRI Care Consultation, those in the intervention group had significantly 

less health deterioration (p = .03; 22.0% less health deterioration) and felt 

significantly less role captivity (p = .02; 20.1% lower role captivity) than those in 

the comparison group. 

In another study, participants were patients with dementia and their caregivers. 

Communities were randomly assigned such that participants in two communities 

received a modified version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 

months and those in three other communities received usual care. The patients were 

60 years and older, had at least one dementia diagnosis in their medical record, 

resided in the community at the start of the study, and were veterans receiving 

primary care from a VA medical center. Findings included the following: 

 From baseline to 6-month followup, among caregivers with higher baseline role 

captivity, those in the intervention group had a significantly greater decrease in 

role captivity than those in the comparison group (25% vs. 4.8%; p = .02). No 

significant differences were found between groups on relationship strain or 

physical deterioration. 

 From baseline to 12-month followup, among caregivers assisting more 

functionally impaired persons, those in the intervention group had a 14.9% 

decrease in relationship strain while those in the comparison group had a 4.8% 

increase (p < .03). No statistically significant differences between groups were 

found on physical deterioration or role captivity. 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 1, Study 3 

Study Designs  Experimental 

 Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.3 

Outcome 5: Patient depression 

Description of Measures Patient depression was assessed using an adapted version of the Center for 

Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) short version. The 11-item instrument 
8 

used 9 items from the CES-D short version and 2 items from the longer version of the 

CES-D. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of the following symptoms 

in the previous week: 

 Bothered by things that don’t usually bother me 

 Not feel like eating or had a poor appetite 

 Have trouble keeping mind on what doing 

 Feel depressed 

 Feel like everything was an effort 

 Sleep restlessly 

 Feel happy 

 Feel lonely 

 Enjoy life 

 Feel sad 

 Not seem to be able to get going 

Response categories ranged from 0 (hardly ever/never) to 2 (often). Trained 

interviewers conducted structured telephone interviews with patients at baseline and 

6 and 12 months after baseline. The interviewed patients were limited to those who 

could pass a baseline screening using an adapted version of the short Blessed 

Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test. 

Key Findings 

Participants were patients with dementia and their caregivers. Communities were 

randomly assigned such that participants in two communities received a modified 

version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 months and those 

in three other communities received usual care. Patients were 60 years and older, had 

at least one dementia diagnosis in their medical record, resided in the community at 

the start of the study, and were veterans receiving primary care from a VA medical 

center. From baseline to 6-month followup, among patients with more cognitive 

impairment, those in the intervention group had a 30.1% decrease in symptoms of 

depression and those in the comparison group had a 50% increase (p = .03). 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 2 

Study Designs Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.4 

Outcome 6: Caregiver depression 

Description of Measures 

Caregiver depression was assessed using an adapted version of the Center for 

Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) short version. The 11-item instrument 

used 9 items from the CES-D short version and 2 items from the longer version of the 

CES-D. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of the following symptoms 

in the previous week: 

 Bothered by things that don’t usually bother me 

 Not feel like eating or had a poor appetite 
9 

 Have trouble keeping mind on what doing 

 Feel depressed 

 Feel like everything was an effort 

 Sleep restlessly 

 Feel happy 

 Feel lonely 

 Enjoy life 

 Feel sad 

 Not seem to be able to get going 

Response categories ranged from 0 (hardly ever/never) to 2 (often). In one study, 

trained, blinded research staff conducted structured telephone interviews with 

caregivers at baseline and 12 months after baseline. In the other study, trained, 

interviewers conducted telephone interviews with caregivers at baseline and 6 and 12 

months after baseline. 

Key Findings 

In one study, Kaiser Permanente patients with diagnosed dementia or memory loss 

and their caregivers were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison 

group. Eligible patients were 55 years or older, residing outside of a nursing home at 

the start of the study, and living in the Cleveland Alzheimer’s Association chapter 

service area. The intervention group received usual managed care services and 12 

months of BRI Care Consultation provided by the Association. Comparison group 

participants received usual managed care services and could independently contact 

the Association for services other than BRI Care Consultation. At 12-month followup, 

caregivers in the intervention group had fewer reported symptoms of depression 

than those in the comparison group (p < .05; 21.0% fewer symptoms of depression). 

In another study, participants were patients with dementia and their caregivers. 

Communities were randomly assigned such that participants in two communities 

received a modified version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 

months and those in three other communities received usual care. The patients were 

60 years and older, had at least one dementia diagnosis in the medical record, resided 

in the community at the start of the study, and were veterans receiving primary care 

from a VA medical center. From baseline to 6-month followup, symptoms of 

depression increased less among the intervention group caregivers than comparison 

group caregivers (6.8% vs. 28.2%; p = .047). 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 1, Study 3 

Study Designs  Experimental 

 Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.6 

Outcome 7: Patient utilization of health care services 

Description of Measures One study used medical records to gather data on three measures of health care 

utilization during the 12-month observation period: dichotomous measure of any 
10

hospital admission, dichotomous measure of any emergency department visits, and 

exact number of physician visits. Medical record data were electronically extracted 

directly from Kaiser Permanente’s computerized information system that included 

clinical and service use data. Data extraction was completed by blinded Kaiser 

Permanente information technology staff. 

Another study used medical records and interviews to gather data on four measures 

of health care utilization during the 12-month observation period: two dichotomous 

measures representing any hospital admissions and any emergency department visits 

and two continuous measures representing number of hospital admissions and 

emergency department visits. Data on hospital and emergency department use 

(including urgent care) from or paid for by the VA were electronically extracted from 

the VA National Patient Care Database maintained at the Austin Automation Center. 

To obtain a full picture of utilization, structured interviews with caregivers at baseline 

and 6 and 12 months after baseline were used to collect data on non-VA hospital and 

emergency department use (including urgent care). 

Key Findings 

In one study, Kaiser Permanente patients with diagnosed dementia or memory loss 

and their caregivers were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison 

group. Eligible patients were 55 years or older, residing outside of a nursing home at 

the start of the study, and living in the Cleveland Alzheimer’s Association chapter 

service area. The intervention group received usual managed care services and 12 

months of BRI Care Consultation provided by the Association. Comparison group 

participants received usual managed care services and could independently contact 

the Association for services other than BRI Care Consultation. Over the 12-month 

period: 

 Among patients with severe memory difficulties, those in the intervention group 

were less likely to have an emergency department visit compared with those in 

the comparison group (p = .03; 50.0% less likely to have an emergency 

department visit). 

 Relative to the comparison group, the intervention group had a significant 

decrease in physician visits as scores on the Blessed Test (a standardized scale 

assessing orientation, registration, attention, memory, and language) increased 

from a low of 0 (i.e., less memory impairment) to a high of 28 (i.e., more memory 

impairment) (p < .01; 23.2% fewer physician visits). 

In another study, participants were patients with dementia and their caregivers. 

Communities were randomly assigned such that participants in two communities 

received a modified version of the intervention called Partners in Dementia Care for 12 

months and those in three other communities received usual care. The patients were 

60 years and older, had at least one dementia diagnosis in their medical record, 

resided in the community at the start of the study, and were veterans receiving 

primary care from a VA medical center. Over the 12-month period: 

 Among patients with more cognitive impairment at 6-month followup, those in 

the intervention group had significantly fewer hospital re-admissions than those 

in the comparison group (1.9 vs. 2.6; p = .01). 

 Among patients with more behavioral symptoms at baseline, those in the 

intervention group had significantly fewer hospital re-admissions than those in 

the comparison group (1.7 vs. 2.5; p = .02). 
11

 Among patients with more behavioral symptoms at 6-month followup, those in 

the intervention group had significantly fewer return emergency department 

visits than those in the comparison group (2.5 vs. 3.5; p = .02). 

Studies Measuring 

Outcome Study 1, Study 2 

Study Designs  Experimental 

 Quasi-experimental 

Quality of Research Rating 

(0.0–4.0 scale) 3.5 

Study Populations 

The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of Research. 

Study Age Gender Race/Ethnicity 

Study 1 

 18–25 (Young adult) 

 26–49 (Adult) 

 50–60 (Older adult) 

 61–74 (Older adult) 

 75–84 (Older adult)

 85+ (Older adult) 

 59% Female 

 41% Male 

 77% White 

 22.5% Black or African 

American 

 0.5% Hispanic or Latino

Study 2 

 61–74 (Older adult) 

 75–84 (Older adult)

 85+ (Older adult) 

 97.5% Male 

 2.5% Female 

 81% White 

 19% Race/ethnicity 

unspecified

Study 3 

 18–25 (Young adult) 

 26–49 (Adult) 

 50–60 (Older adult) 

 61–74 (Older adult) 

 75–84 (Older adult)

 85+ (Older adult) 

 94.9% Female 

 5.1% Male 

 81% White 

 19% Race/ethnicity 

unspecified

Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0–4.0 scale) 

Criterion 

Ratings 

Outcome 

1 

Outcome 

2 

Outcome 

3 

Outcome 

4 

Outcome 

5 

Outcome 

6 

Outcome 

7 

Reliability of Measures 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.8 

Validity of Measures 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 4.0 4.0 4.0
12

Criterion 

Ratings 

Outcome 

1 

Outcome 

2 

Outcome 

3 

Outcome 

4 

Outcome 

5 

Outcome 

6 

Outcome 

7 

Intervention Fidelity 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.1 

Missing Data and 

Attrition 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.1 2.5 3.1 3.1 

Potential Confounding 

Variables 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 

Appropriateness of 

Analysis 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Overall Rating 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.5

Study Strengths 

Patient perception of unmet needs, caregiver perception of unmet needs, and patient perception of relationship 

strain had measures with good internal reliability. Reliability estimates for caregiver strain were good to excellent. The 

reliability of the shortened Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) has been established by other 

researchers; the modifications made to this instrument were reasonable, and subsequent reliability was good. The 

method for establishing reliability for patient utilization of health care services was an established approach in health 

care research, and using information from the caregiver interviews established greater confidence in the measure. 

Internal reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha was high. The measures for patient perception of unmet needs, 

caregiver perception of unmet needs, and patient perception of relationship strain have good structural validity with 

high factor loadings. The shortened CES-D and the two additional items from the original CES-D possess adequate 

validity. Intervention fidelity was good across the three studies; implementation elements were well described, and 

no significant departures from planned implementation were identified. Further, information was provided on the 

number and types of contacts with care consultants. For attrition and missing data, one study addressed attrition and 

missing data effectively, and one study had low attrition rates. Some potential confounds were controlled for: one 

study established baseline equivalence between intervention and comparison groups, one used covariance to address 

lack of equivalence within the sample, and one employed a randomized design. The analytic strategies fit with the 

theoretical approach, model, and hypotheses. Use of ordinary least squares and logistic regression were appropriate. 

Modifying-effects hypotheses and covariates added to the strength of the analysis. Power analysis assumptions were 

appropriate, and subgroup analyses for baseline cognitive and behavioral symptoms provided valuable information 

about the conditions under which the intervention is likely to have greatest impact. 

Study Weaknesses 

Reliability of some measures had not been independently documented by other researchers. No information was 

provided on criterion validity for measures of patient perception of unmet needs, caregiver perception of unmet 
13

needs, or patient perception of relationship strain. There are few details provided about time spent in training. More 

details about the relationship between the Alzheimer’s Association chapters and their partners in the studies (Kaiser 

Permanente in one and VA in the others) would have been helpful. There were issues with attrition in two studies; 

those dropping out of the study differed from those who remained, and no additional analyses were conducted to 

address these differences. In one study, patients who did not pass the mental status test were not interviewed. 

Patients not interviewed were an average of 5 years older and were more likely to have a specific dementia diagnosis 

rather than a diagnosis of memory loss. Although randomization was used for two studies, matched sites rather than 

within-site randomization was used, raising possible concerns about equivalence across intervention and comparison 

groups. In all studies, variability in the use of care coordination services among intervention participants may have 

affected outcomes but was not modeled. 

Readiness for Dissemination 

Review Date: August 2015 

Materials Reviewed 

The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation point of contact can 

provide information regarding implementation of the program and the availability of additional, updated, or 

new materials. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2013). BRI Care Consultation: Fidelity and supervisory reports. Cleveland, OH: 

Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2013). BRI Care Consultation Information System (CCIS) manual: Admin, 

supervisor, quality assurance manual. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2013). BRI Care Consultation Information System (CCIS) manual: Care 

consultant manual. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2013). BRI Care Consultation: Service delivery manual. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2013). Satisfaction survey for care consultation. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2014). BRI Care Consultation Information System Web-based hosting 

agreement. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2014). BRI Care Consultation Web-based program & training materials 

agreement. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2014). Care consultant job description: Template. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2015). BRI Care Consultation assessment. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (2015). BRI Care Consultation Web CCIS user role accessibility. Cleveland, OH: 

Author. 
14

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation [Trade show card]. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Action steps. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: A coaching program for dealing with Alzheimer’s 

disease and other dementias. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Goals. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Preparing for your next call. Cleveland, OH: 

Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Service delivery [Slides]. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Templates. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Tips for the care consultant. Cleveland, OH: 

Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Tips for using the BRI Care Consultation 

Information System (CCIS). Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation training: Agenda. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Training team contact list. Cleveland, OH: 

Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Vignette 1. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Vignette 2. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). BRI Care Consultation: Vignette outcomes. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). Care consultation: How do you stay balanced when you’re wearing too 

many hats? [Brochure]. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). Care consultation: Where can we turn to make the best choices to meet 

our needs? [Brochure]. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging. (n.d.). Certification of completion: Care consultant. Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging Web site, http://www.benrose.org
15

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0–4.0 scale) 

Criterion Rating 

Implementation Materials 4.0

Training and Support 3.5 

Quality Assurance 3.9 

Overall Rating 3.8

Dissemination Strengths 

The service delivery manual is thorough and well organized. It clearly describes and differentiates between the roles 

and responsibilities of the care consultant and the primary caregiver. The manual outlines the timing and sequencing 

of implementation steps and provides guidance on how to modify these steps based on a patient’s circumstances 

while maintaining fidelity. The patient assessment is very comprehensive and provides a solid baseline to create an 

action plan. The electronic Care Consultation Information System (CCIS) aids in timely implementation by allowing 

care consultants to easily access a client’s case file and action steps. Training is required and includes client practice 

sessions for care consultants as well as instruction on using the Web-based information system. The developer offers 

ongoing support in the form of refresher trainings, fidelity review sessions, case consultation, and CCIS 

troubleshooting. Requirements for supervision of the care consultants (e.g., regular meetings with care consultant 

and supervisor), are clearly defined in the program materials to ensure fidelity. Fidelity reports, easily generated using 

the Web-based system, include information on the timely completion of assessments and tasks. Several quality 

assurance materials are available, including a client satisfaction survey. 

Dissemination Weaknesses 

The program Web site lacks important information about the intervention, such as a detailed program description and 

implementation requirements for potential sites. While system-generated fidelity reports list completion rates of 

tasks and track time spent with each patient, more guidance is needed regarding the acceptable levels of these 

measures to improve the work of the care consultant and overall site implementation. 

Costs 

The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information may have been 

updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect the current costs or availability of items 

(including newly developed or discontinued items). The implementation point of contact can provide current 

information and discuss implementation requirements. 
16

Implementation Materials 

Item Description Cost 

Required by 

Developer 

First-year licensing for the Care Consultation Information System 

(CCIS) Web-based software installation and hosting by licensee 

(includes three licenses with full access to the CCIS for care 

consultants and/or supervisors; site administrator(s) license with 

limited access to the CCIS; and one quality assurance license with 

limited access to the CCIS) 

$4,500, plus $500 per 

additional full license Yes 

BRI hosting services for the Web-based CCIS software $100 per month No

1.5-day, on- or offsite (at Benjamin Rose Institute) training on the 

intervention and Web-based system (includes three sets of care 

consultant manuals and training materials, one administrator and 

quality assurance manual, and electronic versions of the manuals) 

$2,500 for up to 10 

participants, plus $250 

per additional person 

and travel expenses 

Yes 

First-year ongoing support and replacement staff training 

(approximately 16 hours, including up to two 2-hour refresher 

trainings, up to four fidelity review sessions by telephone/webinar, 

and up to 4 hours of CCIS troubleshooting and case consultation)

$2,000 Yes 

Webinar training for new care consultants $300 No

Yearly license renewal and updates (includes updates to the CCIS 

Web-based system and other materials, up to 4 hours of CCIS 

troubleshooting, and case consultation for three licenses with full 

access for care consultants, assistants, and/or supervisors) 

$2,100, plus $500 per 

additional full license Yes 

Additional Information 

Training is required for new care consultants after the licensed organization’s initial training. 

Other Citations 

Benjamin Rose Institute. (2004). Patient and Caregiver Outcome Survey: Evaluation of the Chronic Care Networks 

for Alzheimer’s Disease Project (final report). Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute. (2009). Care consultation to integrate health and community care (final report). 

Cleveland, OH: Author. 

Benjamin Rose Institute. (2010). Development and testing of the Care Network for Depression for older adults 

and family caregivers (final report). Cleveland, OH: Author. 
17

Care consultation telephone-based empowerment intervention. (n.d.). Available at 

http://www.rosalynncarter.org/caregiver_intervention_database/dimentia/care_consultation_telephonebased_empowerment_intervention/

Clark, P. A., Bass, D. M., Looman, W. J., McCarthy, C. A. & Eckert, S. (2005). Outcomes for patients with dementia 

from the Cleveland Alzheimer’s Managed Care Demonstration. Research and Practice in Alzheimer’s Disease, 10, 

172–179.

Kunik, M. E., & Bass, D. M. (2011). Partners in Dementia Care: A care coordination intervention for veterans with 

dementia and their family caregivers (final report). Houston, TX: Houston Center for Quality of Care & Utilization 

Studies. 

Lines, L. M., Ahaghotu, C., Tilly, J., & Wiener, J. M. (2003). Care coordination for people with Alzheimer’s disease 

and related dementias: Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2013/alzcc.shtml

Maslow, K. (2012, September). Translating innovation to impact: Evidence-based interventions to support people 

with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers at home and in the community. A white paper. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Administration on Aging. Available at 

http://www.aoa.acl.gov/AoA_Programs/HPW/Alz_Grants/docs/TranslatingInnovationtoImpactAlzheimersDiseas

e.pdf

Translational Work 

BRI Care Consultation was developed in 1996 by a team of researchers at the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging 

in Cleveland, Ohio. Since 2011, BRI Care Consultation has been implemented in 8 States and in 28 diverse types 

of organizations including Area Agencies on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association chapters, VA medical centers, senior 

centers, community service agencies, large medical management groups, and family counseling agencies. 

Funding to sustain the program comes from various sources, such as the National Family Caregiver Support 

Program, Medicaid waiver programs, Older Americans Act respite programs, community foundations, and 

payments by families. 

VA medical centers and local Alzheimer’s Association chapters in Boston, Massachusetts, and Houston, Texas, 

partnered to deliver Partners in Dementia Care—a version of BRI Care Consultation modified for use with 

veterans with dementia and their caregivers. PDC was developed based on the Cleveland Alzheimer’s Managed 

Care Demonstration and the Chronic Care Networks for Alzheimer’s Disease. PDC began in 2006 as a 5-year 

research investigation to assess its cost-effectiveness. Participants included veterans ages 50 years and older 

with a new or pre-existing dementia diagnosis and their caregivers. The program was implemented by both a 

care consultant and a VA medical center dementia care coordinator and focused on veterans’ medical and 

nonmedical needs, which could be met using VA resources, as well as the caregivers’ strain to meet needs not 

addressed by the VA. The cost to deliver PDC in the study (e.g., coordinator salaries, benefits, equipment, 

supplies, training, software, licensing, supervision, administrative overhead) was estimated to be $65 to $80 per 

month per dyad ($800 to $960 per year), depending on the caseload for the care coordination team. 
18

Researchers found that PDC demonstrated significant improvements in psychosocial outcomes compared with 

usual VA care, without substantially increasing costs to the VA over a 1-year followup period. 

PDC was also implemented statewide in Ohio, where six Alzheimer’s Association chapters were licensed to 

deliver the program in 2014. The statewide implementation was facilitated by a 3-year grant from the 

Administration on Aging to enhance and integrate care systems. The grant activities are part of making Ohio a 

dementia-capable State and are supported by the Ohio Department on Aging, the Ohio Council of Alzheimer’s 

Association Chapters, and the Administration for Community Living (ACL). With more than 500 families already 

enrolled, the 6 Alzheimer’s Association chapters are working toward developing the necessary organizational 

infrastructure for long-term, sustained implementation of the program. 

In 2010, three Area Agencies on Aging from diverse geographical regions (urban and rural) in Georgia 

implemented the Georgia Care Consultation Project supported by a grant from the Administration on Aging and 

under the auspices of a partnership between Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging and Rosalynn Carter Institute on 

Caregiving. The project was designed to implement BRI Care Consultation to help family caregivers and patients 

access information about health problems, access available resources to mobilize and facilitate the use of 

supports and services, and receive emotional support. The initiative also included an assessment of the 

implementation project using the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and 

Maintenance). The project served nearly 600 individuals with dementia and their caregivers. The evaluation 

found that BRI Care Consultation produced positive outcomes among caregivers and patients while sustaining a 

low average annual cost of service to Georgia families. Statistically significant outcomes from program 

enrollment to 12-month followup included an increase in caregiver confidence to manage caregiving; increase in 

meeting caregiver needs (organizing caregiver networks, understanding the dementia diagnosis, accessing 

services, and receiving emotional support); and for caregivers of patients with high cognitive impairment, 

reductions in social isolation, physical and emotional health strain, and role captivity. As a result of these 

positive outcomes, the project added two more Georgia Area Agencies on Aging in 2013 and four additional 

sites scheduled for 2015. The analysis demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of the program; the annual cost of 

service per caregiving family was considerably less than the annual cost of traditional case management in 

Georgia, which was $1,454 per client. 

The Care Consultation Information System (CCIS) software package was developed to promote implementation 

that is consistent with the intervention’s required standardized protocol. The fourth version of this software was 

released in 2015. This Web-based version eases documentation burdens on care consultants and helps manage 

assessment/reassessment, action plan development and monitoring, and ongoing monitoring of fidelity and 

outcomes. It includes many reporting tools for fidelity monitoring, evaluation, supervision, and clinical decision 

making. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging holds the copyright and trademark for BRI Care Consultation and currently 

licenses sites to deliver the program. Some licenses are done in partnership between the Benjamin Rose 

Institute on Aging and the Rosalynn Carter Institute on Caregiving. 
19

Site With 

Translational 

Work 

References Describing Site’s Translational Work, by Category 

Planning/ 

Partners Adoption 

Reach/ 

Recruitment Implementation Effectiveness Maintenance 

Ohio 

Department of 

Aging 

Reference 1 — — — — —

3 Georgia 

Agencies on 

Aging 

Reference 2 Reference 2 Reference 2 Reference 2 Reference 2 Reference 2 

5 VA medical 

centers 

(Boston, MA, 

and Houston, 

TX) 

Reference 3 Reference 3 Reference 3 Reference 3 Reference 3 —

Reference 

Number Reference 

1 

Ohio Department of Aging. (2011, October). Feds give Ohio authority to allow options for seniors who 

prefer assisted living over nursing home and funding to continue transforming services for aging 

Ohioans. Available at http://www.aging.ohio.gov/news/pressreleases/2011/20111003.htm 

2 

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (2014). Georgia: Empowering caregivers and care 

receivers with BRI Care Consultation. Available at http://www.astho.org/healthyaging/EmpoweredPeople/ASTHO-State-Story-GA-BRI-Care-Consultation/

3 

Morgan, R. O., Bass, D. M., Judge, K. S., Liu, C. F., Wilson, N., Snow, A. L., . . . Kunik, M. E. (2015). A 

break-even analysis for dementia care collaboration: Partners in Dementia Care. Journal of General 

Internal Medicine, 30(6), 804–809. PubMed abstract available at 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25666216 

Contacts 

To learn more about implementation, contact: 

Branka Primetica, M.S.W. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging 

(216) 373-1662 

bprimetica@benrose.org 

To learn more about research, contact: 

David Bass, Ph.D. 

Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging 

(216) 373-1664 

dbass@benrose.org 

Additional program information can be obtained through the following Web site(s): 

http://www.benrose.org/research/EBP_CareConsultation.cfm