Managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care

Substitution of outpatient care with primary care: a feasibility study on the experiences among general practitioners, medical specialists and patients

Background

Reinforcing the gatekeeping role of general practitioners (GPs) by embedding specialist knowledge into primary care is seen as a possibility for stimulating a more sustainable healthcare system and avoiding unnecessary referrals to outpatient care. An intervention called Primary Care Plus (PC+) was developed to achieve these goals. The objective of this study is to gain insight into: (1) the content and added value of PC+ consultations according to stakeholders, and (2) patient satisfaction with PC+ compared to outpatient care.

Methods

A feasibility study was conducted in the southern part of the Netherlands between April 2013 and January 2014. Data was collected using GP, medical specialist and patient questionnaires. Patient characteristics and medical specialty data were collected through the data system of a GP referral department.

Results

GPs indicated that they would have referred 85.4 % of their PC+ patients to outpatient care in the hypothetical case that PC+ was not available. Medical specialists indicated that about one fifth of the patients needed follow-up in outpatient care and 75.9 % of the consultations were of added value to patient care. The patient satisfaction results appear to be in favour of PC+.

Conclusion

PC+ seems to be a feasible intervention to be implemented on a larger scale, because it has the potential to prevent unnecessary hospital referrals. PC+ will be evaluated on a larger scale regarding the effects on health outcomes, quality of care and costs (Triple Aim principle).

Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of ‘high-impact’ indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals’ perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators.

Methods

We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis.

Results

Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators.

Conclusions

The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to ‘high-impact’ indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations.

Behavioural health consultants in integrated primary care teams: a model for future care

BACKGROUND

Significant challenges exist within primary care services in the United Kingdom (UK). These include meeting current demand, financial pressures, an aging population and an increase in multi-morbidity. Psychological services also struggle to meet waiting time targets and to ensure increased access to psychological therapies. Innovative ways of delivering effective primary care and psychological services are needed to improve health outcomes. In this article we argue that integrated care models that incorporate behavioural health care are part of the solution, which has seldom been argued in relation to UK primary care. Integrated care involves structural and systemic changes to the delivery of services, including the co-location of multi-disciplinary primary care teams. Evidence from models of integrated primary care in the United States of America (USA) and other higher-income countries suggest that embedding continuity of care and collaborative practice within integrated care teams can be effective in improving health outcomes. The Behavioural Health Consultant (BHC) role is integral to this, working psychologically to support the team to improve collaborative working, and supporting patients to make changes to improve their health across management of long-term conditions, prevention and mental wellbeing. Patients' needs for higher-intensity interventions to enable changes in behaviour and self-management are, therefore, more fully met within primary care. The role also increases accessibility of psychological services, delivers earlier interventions and reduces stigma, since psychological staff are seen as part of the core primary care service. Although the UK has trialled a range of approaches to integrated care, these fall short of the highest level of integration. A single short pilot of integrated care in the UK showed positive results. Larger pilots with robust evaluation, as well as research trials are required. There are clearly challenges in adopting such an approach, especially for staff who must adapt to working more collaboratively with each other and patients. Strong leadership is needed to assist in this, particularly to support organisations to adopt the shift in values and attitudes towards collaborative working.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated primary care services that embed behavioural health as part of a multi-disciplinary team may be part of the solution to significant modern day health challenges. However, developing this model is unlikely to be straight-forward given current primary care structures and ways of working. The discussion, developed in this article, adds to our understanding of what the BHC role might consist off and how integrated care may be supported by such behavioural health expertise. Further work is needed to develop this model in the UK, and to evaluate its impact on health outcomes and health care utilisation, and test robustly through research trials.

Patterns of multimorbidity and their association with health outcomes within Yorkshire, England: baseline results from the Yorkshire Health Study

Background

Multimorbidity is increasingly being recognized as a serious public health concern. Research into its determinants, prevalence, and management is needed and as the risk of experiencing multiple chronic conditions increases over time, attention should be given to investigating the development of multimorbidity through prospective cohort design studies. Here we examine the baseline patterns of multimorbidity and their association with health outcomes for residents in Yorkshire, England using data from the Yorkshire Health Study.

Methods

Baseline data from the Yorkshire Health Study (YHS) was collected from 27,806 patients recruited between 2010 and 2012. A two-stage sampling strategy was implemented which first involved recruiting 43 general practice surgeries and then having them consent to mailing invitations to their patients to complete postal or online questionnaires. The questionnaire collected information on chronic health conditions, demographics, health-related behaviours, healthcare and medication usage, and a range of other health related variables. Descriptive statistics (chi-square and t tests) were used to examine associations between these variables and multimorbidity.

Results

In the YHS cohort, 10,332 participants (37.2 %) reported having at least two or more long-term health conditions (multimorbidity). Older age, BMI and deprivation were all positively associated with multimorbidity. Nearly half (45.7 %) of participants from the most deprived areas experienced multimorbidity. Based on the weighted sample, average health-related quality of life decreased with the number of health conditions reported; the mean EQ-5D score for participants with no conditions was 0.945 compared to 0.355 for participants with five or more. The mean number of medications used for those without multimorbidity was 1.81 (range 1-13, SD = 1.25) compared to 3.81 (range 1-14, SD = 2.44) for those with at least two long-term conditions and 7.47 (range 1-37, SD = 7.47) for those with 5+ conditions.

Conclusion

Patterns of multimorbidity within the Yorkshire Health Study support research on multimorbidity within previous observational cross-sectional studies. The YHS provides both a facility for participant recruitment to intervention trials, and a large population-based longitudinal cohort for observational research. It is planned to continue to record chronic conditions and other health related behaviours in future waves which will be useful for examining determinants and trends in chronic disease and multimorbidity.

Prevalence and co-prevalence of comorbidities among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have multiple comorbidities which may impact the selection of antihyperglycemic therapies. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence and co-prevalence of common comorbidities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using the Quintiles Electronic Medical Record database. Adult patients with T2DM who had ≥1 encounter from July 2014 to June 2015 (index period) with ≥1 year medical history available were included. The index date was defined as the most recent encounter date during the 1 year index period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comorbid conditions were assessed using all data available prior to and including the index date. Patient characteristics, laboratory measures, and comorbidities were summarized via descriptive analyses, overall and by subgroups of age (<65, 65-74, 75+ years) and gender.

RESULTS

Of the 1,389,016 eligible patients, 53% were female and the median age was 65 years. 97.5% of patients had at least one comorbid condition in addition to T2DM and 88.5% had at least two. The comorbidity burden tended to increase in older age groups and was higher in men than women. The most common conditions in patients with T2DM included hypertension (HTN) in 82.1%; overweight/obesity in 78.2%; hyperlipidemia in 77.2%; chronic kidney disease (CKD) in 24.1%; and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 21.6%. The highest co-prevalence was demonstrated for the combination of HTN and hyperlipidemia (67.5%), followed by overweight/obesity and HTN (66.0%), overweight/obesity and hyperlipidemia (62.5%), HTN and CKD (22.4%), hyperlipidemia and CKD (21.1%), HTN and CVD (20.2%), hyperlipidemia and CVD (20.1%), overweight/obesity and CKD (19.1%) and overweight/obesity and CVD (17.0%).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include the potential for misclassification/underreporting due to the use of diagnostic codes, drug codes, or laboratory measures for identification of medical conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients with T2DM have multiple comorbidities. To ensure a comprehensive approach to patient management, the presence of multimorbidity should be considered in the context of clinical decision making.

The CARE Plus study - a whole-system intervention to improve quality of life of primary care patients with multimorbidity in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation: exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is common in deprived communities and reduces quality of life. Our aim was to evaluate a whole-system primary care-based complex intervention, called CARE Plus, to improve quality of life in multimorbid patients living in areas of very high deprivation.

METHODS

We used a phase 2 exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial with eight general practices in Glasgow in very deprived areas that involved multimorbid patients aged 30-65 years. The intervention comprised structured longer consultations, relationship continuity, practitioner support, and self-management support. Control practices continued treatment as usual. Primary outcomes were quality of life (EQ-5D-5L utility scores) and well-being (W-BQ12; 3 domains). Cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective, engagement, and retention were assessed. Recruitment and baseline measurements occurred prior to randomisation. Blinding post-randomisation was not possible but outcome measurement and analysis were masked. Analyses were by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Of 76 eligible practices contacted, 12 accepted, and eight were selected, randomised and participated for the duration of the trial. Of 225 eligible patients, 152 (68 %) participated and 67/76 (88 %) in each arm completed the 12-month assessment. Two patients died in the control group. CARE Plus significantly improved one domain of well-being (negative well-being), with an effect size of 0.33 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.55) at 12 months (p = 0.0036). Positive well-being, energy, and general well-being (the combined score of the three components) were not significantly influenced by the intervention at 12 months. EQ-5D-5L area under the curve over the 12 months was higher in the CARE Plus group (p = 0.002). The incremental cost in the CARE Plus group was £929 (95 % CI: £86-£1788) per participant with a gain in quality-adjusted life years of 0.076 (95 % CI: 0.028-0.124) over the 12 months of the trial, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,224 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Modelling suggested that cost-effectiveness would continue.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to conduct a high-quality cluster randomised control trial of a complex intervention with multimorbid patients in primary care in areas of very high deprivation. Enhancing primary care through a whole-system approach may be a cost-effective way to protect quality of life for multimorbid patients in deprived areas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 34092919 , assigned 14/1/2013.

Integrated care pathways—A strategy towards better care coordination in municipalities? A qualitative study

Introduction

One of the main strategies in the Coordination Reform in Norway is implementing integrated care pathways. Most studies on integrated care pathways are conducted in hospital settings or across the hospital–primary care continuum. There are few studies on how such pathways are experienced in primary care. We have conducted a formative evaluation in a primary care setting. The research questions are “What assessments and understanding of integrated care pathways exist in primary care?” “To what extent do integrated care pathways appear as a suitable strategy to handle care coordination challenges from a primary care point of view?”

Methods

A total of 72 qualitative interviews with chief municipal executives and healthcare management from 36 municipalities in one county of Norway were conducted.

Results

Even though integrated care pathways were promoted as a strategy to accommodate the intentions of the Coordination Reform, the concept is perceived as diffuse and ambiguous among informants in our study. Only one of four municipalities reported use of integrated care pathways.

Discussion

Our empirical findings show that municipal management is skeptical and negatively minded to disease-specific integrated care pathways. However, they are positive towards patient-centered care pathways which are flexible, adaptable to individual needs and local conditions. We found that there is no golden strategy for handling challenges in care coordination in primary care. On the contrary, what our informants find as “appropriate” strategies vary and change, but the complexity in problem solving could never be reduced to enforce standardized diagnose-specific integrated care pathways.

Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics

OBJECTIVES

To examine trends in opioid prescribing in primary care, identify patient and general practice characteristics associated with long-term and stronger opioid prescribing, and identify associations with changes in opioid prescribing.

DESIGN

Trend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routinely recorded patient data.

SETTING

111 primary care practices in Leeds and Bradford, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

We observed 471 828 patient-years in which all patients represented had at least 1 opioid prescription between April 2005 and March 2012. A cross-sectional analysis included 99 847 patients prescribed opioids between April 2011 and March 2012. A longitudinal analysis included 49 065 patient-years between April 2008 and March 2012. We excluded patients with cancer or treated for substance misuse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Long-term opioid prescribing (4 or more prescriptions within 12 months), stronger opioid prescribing and stepping up to or down from stronger opioids.

RESULTS

Opioid prescribing in the adult population almost doubled for weaker opioids over 2005-2012 and rose over sixfold for stronger opioids. There was marked variation among general practices in the odds of patients stepping up to stronger opioids compared with those not stepping up (range 0.31-3.36), unexplained by practice-level variables. Stepping up to stronger opioids was most strongly associated with being underweight (adjusted OR 3.26, 1.49 to 7.17), increasing polypharmacy (4.15, 3.26 to 5.29 for 10 or more repeat prescriptions), increasing numbers of primary care appointments (3.04, 2.48 to 3.73 for over 12 appointments in the year) and referrals to specialist pain services (5.17, 4.37 to 6.12). Compared with women under 50 years, men under 50 were less likely to step down once prescribed stronger opioids (0.53, 0.37 to 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

While clinicians should be alert to patients at risk of escalated opioid prescribing, much prescribing variation may be attributable to clinical behaviour. Effective strategies targeting clinicians and patients are needed to curb rising prescribing, especially of stronger opioids.

What doctors need to know: Prescribing or not for the oldest old

Given the global increase in the number of people over the age of 85, there is a growing body of work concerning this group, termed the oldest old. Much of this work is confined to the literature specialising in geriatrics and the more generic health care papers refer to 'older people' with little definition of what is meant by 'older'. Iatrogenesis (ill health caused by doctors) is a major issue and general practitioners (GPs) need practical help in prescribing for the oldest old. This paper presents a narrative review of the literature on prescribing and the oldest old. The results showed that all papers sourced referred to prescribing for the 'old' as those aged over 65, with only scant mention of oldest old. Yet prescribing for the oldest old involves clinical judgement and knowledge of the patient. It includes weighing up what will do good, cause no harm and is acceptable to the individual. GPs have to make treatment choices mostly in isolation from colleagues, during time-limited consultations and with few relevant guidelines on managing multi-morbidities in the oldest old. A major issue in prescribing for people over the age of 85 is that guidelines for diseases are based on trials with younger adults, outline the best practice for one disease in isolation (i.e. not in the presence of other diseases) and take little account of the interactions between the drugs used in managing several diseases in frail older people. There is a growing body of work, however, calling for specialist services for the oldest old.

Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Control Among Hypertensive Patients With Coexisting Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care Settings: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Hypertension is a typical example of long-term disease posing formidable challenges to health care. One goal of antihypertensive therapy is to achieve optimal blood pressure (BP) control and reduce co-occurring chronic conditions (multimorbidity). This study aimed to assess the influence of multimorbidity on medication adherence, and to explore the association between poor BP control and multimorbidity, with implications for hypertension management.A cross-sectional design with multistage sampling was adopted to recruit Chinese hypertensive patients attending general out-patient clinics from 3 geographic regions in Hong Kong. A modified systemic sampling methodology with 1 patient as a sampling unit was used to recruit consecutive samples in each general out-patient clinic. Data were collected by face-to-face interviews using a standardized protocol. Poor BP control was defined as having systolic BP/diastolic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg for those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease; and ≥140/90 mm Hg for others. Medication adherence was assessed by a validated Chinese version of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. A simple unweighted enumeration was adopted to measure the combinations of coexisting long-term conditions. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted with medication adherence and multimorbidity as outcome variables, respectively, after controlling for effects of patient-level covariates.The prevalence of multimorbidity was 47.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.4%-49.4%) among a total of 2445 hypertensive patients. The proportion of subjects having 0, 1, and ≥2 additional long-term conditions was 52.6%, 29.1%, and 18.3%, respectively. The overall rate of poor adherence to medication was 46.6%, whereas the rate of suboptimal BP control was 48.7%. Albeit the influence of multimorbidity on medication adherence was not found to be statistically significant, patients with poorly controlled BP were more likely to have multimorbidity (adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 95% CI 1.70-2.53, P < 0.001). Diabetes was the most prevalent concomitant long-term condition among hypertensive patients with poor BP control (38.6%, 95% CI 35.8-41.4 vs 19.7%, 95% CI 17.5-21.9 for patients with good BP control, P < 0.001).Multimorbidity was common among hypertensive patients, and was associated with poor BP control. Subjects with coexisting diabetes, heart disease, or chronic kidney disorder should receive more clinical attention to achieve better clinical outcomes.

Improving the management of multimorbidity in general practice: protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial (The 3D Study)

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of people are living with multimorbidity. The evidence base for how best to manage these patients is weak. Current clinical guidelines generally focus on single conditions, which may not reflect the needs of patients with multimorbidity. The aim of the 3D study is to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. 32 general practices around Bristol, Greater Manchester and Glasgow will be randomised to receive either the '3D intervention' or usual care. 3D is a complex intervention including components affecting practice organisation, the conduct of patient reviews, integration with secondary care and measures to promote change in practice organisation. Changes include improving continuity of care and replacing reviews of each disease with patient-centred reviews with a focus on patients' quality of life, mental health and polypharmacy. We aim to recruit 1383 patients who have 3 or more chronic conditions. This provides 90% power at 5% significance level to detect an effect size of 0.27 SDs in the primary outcome, which is health-related quality of life at 15 months using the EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcome measures assess patient centredness, illness burden and treatment burden. The primary analysis will be a multilevel regression model adjusted for baseline, stratification/minimisation, clustering and important co-variables. Nested process evaluation will assess implementation, mechanisms of effectiveness and interaction of the intervention with local context. Economic analysis of cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness will be based on quality-adjusted life years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has approval from South-West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via final report, peer-reviewed publications and guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN06180958; Pre-results.

The Association Between Multimorbidity and Quality of Life, Health Status and Functional Disability

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 50% of adults have multimorbidity (MM) that is associated with greater disability, poorer quality of life (QOL) and increased psychological distress. This study assessed the association between MM and QOL, health status and functional disability in U.S. adults.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 23,789 patients from 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was conducted. Mean scores were calculated for QOL (physical component score [PCS] and mental component score [MCS]) and proportions for functional limitation (activities of daily living [ADL]; instrumental ADL [IADL] and physical functioning). Health status was assessed by depression and serious psychological distress. Regression models evaluated associations between MM and QOL, functional health status and functional limitations, while adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

Approximately 53% of 45-64-year-olds and 84% of those ≥65-years-old had MM. In adjusted models, ≥3 conditions were significantly associated with poorer outcomes-PCS QOL (β = -9.15; 95% CI: -9.69 to -8.61), MCS QOL (β = -1.98; 95% CI: -2.43 to -1.52), ADL (odds ratio [OR] = 5.80; 95% CI: 2.27-14.8), IADL (OR = 3.99; 95% CI: 2.31-6.88) and physical functioning (OR = 16.8; 95% CI: 12.0-23.6) compared with 1-2 conditions. Depression (PCS QOL: β = -4.02; 95% CI: -4.89 to -3.15; MCS QOL: β = -12.5; 95% CI: -13.2 to -10.9; ADL: OR = 2.49; 95% CI: 1.65-3.76; IADL: OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.88-3.72; physical functioning: OR = 2.44; 95% CI: 1.99-2.99) and serious psychological distress (PCS QOL: β = -3.16; 95% CI: -4.30 to -2.03; MCS QOL: β = -11.8; 95% CI: -12.8 to -10.8; ADL: OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 0.95-2.60; IADL: OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59 and physical functioning: OR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.11-1.78) were significantly associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, MM was significantly associated with poorer QOL, functional health status and physical functioning, when adjusting for relevant confounders. A holistic view of the complexities associated with MM must dictate comprehensive care.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings

BACKGROUND

Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 12 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.52 to -1.95). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence) although two studies that specifically targeted functional difficulties in participants had positive effects on functional outcomes with one of these studies also reporting a reduction in mortality at four year follow-up (Int 6%, Con 13%, absolute difference 7%). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression, or specific functional difficulties in people with multimorbidity.

Comorbidity and dementia: a mixed-method study on improving health care for people with dementia (CoDem)

Background

Among people living with dementia (PLWD) there is a high prevalence of comorbid medical conditions but little is known about the effects of comorbidity on processes and quality of care and patient needs or how services are adapting to address the particular needs of this population.

Objectives

To explore the impact of dementia on access to non-dementia services and identify ways of improving the integration of services for this population.

Design

We undertook a scoping review, cross-sectional analysis of a population cohort database, interviews with PLWD and comorbidity and their family carers and focus groups or interviews with health-care professionals (HCPs). We focused specifically on three conditions: diabetes, stroke and vision impairment (VI). The analysis was informed by theories of continuity of care and access to care.

Participants

The study included 28 community-dwelling PLWD with one of our target comorbidities, 33 family carers and 56 HCPs specialising in diabetes, stroke, VI or primary care.

Results

The scoping review (n = 76 studies or reports) found a lack of continuity in health-care systems for PLWD and comorbidity, with little integration or communication between different teams and specialities. PLWD had poorer access to services than those without dementia. Analysis of a population cohort database found that 17% of PLWD had diabetes, 18% had had a stroke and 17% had some form of VI. There has been an increase in the use of unpaid care for PLWD and comorbidity over the last decade. Our qualitative data supported the findings of the scoping review: communication was often poor, with an absence of a standardised approach to sharing information about a person’s dementia and how it might affect the management of other conditions. Although HCPs acknowledged the vital role that family carers play in managing health-care conditions of PLWD and facilitating continuity and access to care, this recognition did not translate into their routine involvement in appointments or decision-making about their family member. Although we found examples of good practice, these tended to be about the behaviour of individual practitioners rather than system-based approaches; current systems may unintentionally block access to care for PLWD. Pathways and guidelines for our three target conditions do not address the possibility of a dementia diagnosis or provide decision-making support for practitioners trying to weigh up the risks and benefits of treatment for PLWD.

Conclusions

Significant numbers of PLWD have comorbid conditions such as stroke, diabetes and VI. The presence of dementia complicates the delivery of health and social care and magnifies the difficulties that people with long-term conditions experience. Key elements of good care for PLWD and comorbidity include having the PLWD and family carer at the centre, flexibility around processes and good communication which ensures that all services are aware when someone has a diagnosis of dementia. The impact of a diagnosis of dementia on pre-existing conditions should be incorporated into guidelines and care planning. Future work needs to focus on the development and evaluation of interventions to improve continuity of care and access to services for PLWD with comorbidity.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Multimorbidity and Its Patterns according to Immigrant Origin. A Nationwide Register-Based Study in Norway

INTRODUCTION

As the flows of immigrant populations increase worldwide, their heterogeneity becomes apparent with respect to the differences in the prevalence of chronic physical and mental disease. Multimorbidity provides a new framework in understanding chronic diseases holistically as the consequence of environmental, social, and personal risks that contribute to increased vulnerability to a wide variety of illnesses. There is a lack of studies on multimorbidity among immigrants compared to native-born populations.

METHODOLOGY

This nationwide multi-register study in Norway enabled us i) to study the associations between multimorbidity and immigrant origin, accounting for other known risk factors for multimorbidity such as gender, age and socioeconomic levels using logistic regression analyses, and ii) to identify patterns of multimorbidity in Norway for immigrants and Norwegian-born by means of exploratory factor analysis technique.

RESULTS

Multimorbidity rates were lower for immigrants compared to Norwegian-born individuals, with unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals 0.38 (0.37-0.39) for Eastern Europe, 0.58 (0.57-0.59) for Asia, Africa and Latin America, and 0.67 (0.66-0.68) for Western Europe and North America. Results remained significant after adjusting for socioeconomic factors. Similar multimorbidity disease patterns were observed among Norwegian-born and immigrants, in particular between Norwegian-born and those from Western European and North American countries. However, the complexity of patterns that emerged for the other immigrant groups was greater. Despite differences observed in the development of patterns with age, such as ischemic heart disease among immigrant women, we were unable to detect the systematic development of the multimorbidity patterns among immigrants at younger ages.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that migrants have lower multimorbidity levels compared to Norwegian-born. The greater complexity of multimorbidity patterns for some immigrant groups requires further investigation. Health care policies and practice will require a holistic approach for specific population groups in order to meet their health needs and to curb and prevent diseases.

Multimorbidity Patterns in Elderly Primary Health Care Patients in a South Mediterranean European Region: A Cluster Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify clusters of diagnoses in elderly patients with multimorbidity, attended in primary care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

251 primary care centres in Catalonia, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals older than 64 years registered with participating practices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Multimorbidity, defined as the coexistence of 2 or more ICD-10 disease categories in the electronic health record. Using hierarchical cluster analysis, multimorbidity clusters were identified by sex and age group (65-79 and ≥80 years).

RESULTS

322,328 patients with multimorbidity were included in the analysis (mean age, 75.4 years [Standard deviation, SD: 7.4], 57.4% women; mean of 7.9 diagnoses [SD: 3.9]). For both men and women, the first cluster in both age groups included the same two diagnoses: Hypertensive diseases and Metabolic disorders. The second cluster contained three diagnoses of the musculoskeletal system in the 65- to 79-year-old group, and five diseases coincided in the ≥80 age group: varicose veins of the lower limbs, senile cataract, dorsalgia, functional intestinal disorders and shoulder lesions. The greatest overlap (54.5%) between the three most common diagnoses was observed in women aged 65-79 years.

CONCLUSION

This cluster analysis of elderly primary care patients with multimorbidity, revealed a single cluster of circulatory-metabolic diseases that were the most prevalent in both age groups and sex, and a cluster of second-most prevalent diagnoses that included musculoskeletal diseases. Clusters unknown to date have been identified. The clusters identified should be considered when developing clinical guidance for this population.

How GPs value guidelines applied to patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore and describe the value general practitioner (GPs) attribute to medical guidelines when they are applied to patients with multimorbidity, and to describe which benefits GPs experience from guideline adherence in these patients. Also, we aimed to identify limitations from guideline adherence in patients with multimorbidity, as perceived by GPs, and to describe their empirical solutions to manage these obstacles.

DESIGN

Focus group study with purposive sampling of participants. Focus groups were guided by an experienced moderator who used an interview guide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was performed by two researchers using the constant comparison analysis technique and field notes were used in the analysis. Data collection proceeded until saturation was reached.

SETTING

Primary care, eastern part of The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Dutch GPs, heterogeneous in age, sex and academic involvement.

RESULTS

25 GPs participated in five focus groups. GPs valued the guidance that guidelines provide, but experienced shortcomings when they were applied to patients with multimorbidity. Taking these patients' personal circumstances into account was regarded as important, but it was impeded by a consistent focus on guideline adherence. Preventative measures were considered less appropriate in (elderly) patients with multimorbidity. Moreover, the applicability of guidelines in patients with multimorbidity was questioned. GPs' extensive practical experience with managing multimorbidity resulted in several empirical solutions, for example, using their 'common sense' to respond to the perceived shortcomings.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs applying guidelines for patients with multimorbidity integrate patient-specific factors in their medical decisions, aiming for patient-centred solutions. Such integration of clinical experience and best evidence is required to practise evidence-based medicine. More flexibility in pay-for-performance systems is needed to facilitate this integration. Several improvements in guideline reporting are necessary to enhance the applicability of guidelines in patients with multimorbidity.

Multimorbidity among registered immigrants in Norway: the role of reason for migration and length of stay

OBJECTIVES

International migration is rapidly increasing worldwide. However, the health status of migrants differs across groups. Information regarding health at arrival and subsequent periodic follow-up in the host country is necessary to develop equitable health care to immigrants. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the length of stay in Norway and other sociodemographic variables on the prevalence of multimorbidity across immigrant groups (refugees, labour immigrants, family reunification immigrants and education immigrants).

METHODS

This is a register-based study merging data from the National Population Register and the Norwegian Health Economics Administration database. Sociodemographic variables and multimorbidity across the immigrant groups were compared using Persons' chi-square test and anova as appropriate. Several binary logistic regression models were conducted.

RESULTS

Multimorbidity was significantly lower among labour immigrants (OR (95% CI) 0.23 (0.21-0.26) and 0.45 (0.40-0.50) for men and women, respectively) and education immigrants (OR (95% CI) 0.40 (0.32-0.50) and 0.38 (0.33-0.43)) and higher among refugees (OR (95% CI) 1.67 (1.57-1.78) and 1.83 (1.75-1.92)), compared to family reunification immigrants. For all groups, multimorbidity doubled after a five-year stay in Norway. Effect modifications between multimorbidity and sociodemographic characteristics across the different reasons for migration were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimorbidity was highest among refugees at arrival but increased rapidly among labour immigrants, especially females. Health providers need to ensure tailor-made preventive and management strategies that take into account pre-migration and post-migration experiences for immigrants in order to address their needs.

Multimorbidity and functional decline in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity affects up to one quarter of primary care populations. It is associated with reduced quality of life, an increased risk of mental health difficulties and increased healthcare utilisation. Functional decline is defined as developing difficulties with activities of daily living and is independently associated with poorer health outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the association between multimorbidity and functional decline and to what extent multimorbidity predicts future functional decline.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (1990-2014) and narrative analysis was conducted.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Population; Community-dwelling adults (≥18 years), Risk; Multimorbidity defined as the presence of ≥2 chronic medical conditions in an individual, Primary outcome; Physical functional decline measured using a validated instrument, Study design; cross-sectional or cohort studies. The following databases were included: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and the International Research Community on Multimorbidity (IRCMo) publication list. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was conducted with a suitable risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were eligible for inclusion (28 cross-sectional studies and 9 cohort studies). The majority of cross-sectional studies (n = 24/28) demonstrated a consistent association between multimorbidity and functional decline. Twelve of these studies reported that increasing numbers of chronic condition counts were associated with worsening functional decline. Nine cohort studies included 14,133 study participants with follow-up periods ranging from one to six years. The majority (n = 5) found that multimorbidity predicted functional decline. Of the five studies that reported the impact of increasing numbers of conditions, all reported greater functional decline with increasing numbers of conditions. One study examined disease severity and found that this also predicted greater functional decline. Overall, cohort studies were of good methodological quality but were mixed in terms of participants, multimorbidity definitions, follow-up duration, and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence indicates that multimorbidity predicts future functional decline, with greater decline in patients with higher numbers of conditions and greater disease severity. This review highlights the importance of considering physical functioning when designing interventions and systems of care for patients with multimorbidity, particularly for patients with higher numbers of conditions and greater disease severity.

Multimorbidity and functional decline in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity affects up to one quarter of primary care populations. It is associated with reduced quality of life, an increased risk of mental health difficulties and increased healthcare utilisation. Functional decline is defined as developing difficulties with activities of daily living and is independently associated with poorer health outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the association between multimorbidity and functional decline and to what extent multimorbidity predicts future functional decline.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (1990-2014) and narrative analysis was conducted.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Population; Community-dwelling adults (≥18 years), Risk; Multimorbidity defined as the presence of ≥2 chronic medical conditions in an individual, Primary outcome; Physical functional decline measured using a validated instrument, Study design; cross-sectional or cohort studies. The following databases were included: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and the International Research Community on Multimorbidity (IRCMo) publication list. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was conducted with a suitable risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were eligible for inclusion (28 cross-sectional studies and 9 cohort studies). The majority of cross-sectional studies (n = 24/28) demonstrated a consistent association between multimorbidity and functional decline. Twelve of these studies reported that increasing numbers of chronic condition counts were associated with worsening functional decline. Nine cohort studies included 14,133 study participants with follow-up periods ranging from one to six years. The majority (n = 5) found that multimorbidity predicted functional decline. Of the five studies that reported the impact of increasing numbers of conditions, all reported greater functional decline with increasing numbers of conditions. One study examined disease severity and found that this also predicted greater functional decline. Overall, cohort studies were of good methodological quality but were mixed in terms of participants, multimorbidity definitions, follow-up duration, and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence indicates that multimorbidity predicts future functional decline, with greater decline in patients with higher numbers of conditions and greater disease severity. This review highlights the importance of considering physical functioning when designing interventions and systems of care for patients with multimorbidity, particularly for patients with higher numbers of conditions and greater disease severity.

Reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between older patients with multimorbidity and their GPs - a qualitative study

Background

Chronic conditions are the most common themes in doctor-patient communication, especially for older patients with multimorbidity and their GPs. Former quantitative studies identified a variety of socio-demographic and health-related factors which were associated with the (dis-)agreement between medical records and patient self-reported diseases. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between patients and their GPs.

Methods

We conducted three focus groups with GPs (n = 15) and three focus groups with multimorbid patients aged 65 to 85 (n = 21). The participants were recruited from the MultiCare Cohort Study. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts of the focus groups were analysed using the qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Categories were determined deductively and inductively.

Results

The analysis revealed seven themes concerning reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between patients and their GPs: problems with communication and cooperation between health care professionals, disease management by the GP and the patient, the documentation behaviour of the GP, communication challenges between GP and patient, differences in the understanding of a disease between GP and patient, the prioritization and rating of diseases by GP and patient and obliviousness, repression and avoidance by the patient.

Conclusions

For older patients with multimorbidity, our study demonstrated that there is a need to enhance the cooperation between GPs, specialists and outpatient care, a demand to improve doctor-patient communication and a need for interventions to increase patients’ knowledge of diseases.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0286-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.