Priorities and preferences for care of people with multiple chronic conditions

Perceptions and experiences of living with and providing care for multimorbidity: A qualitative interview study

Background

Experiences of living with and seeking care for multimorbidity is a relatively under-researched field. By analysing experiences of people with multimorbidity, caregivers and care professionals, we can better understand the complex care needs of those with multimorbidity and identify improvements to care management. This paper reports findings from research that elicited the views of key stakeholders to inform future care practice and policy.

Aim

To elicit care recipient and care provider views to understand the care needs of those living with and seeking care for multimorbidity.

Method

A qualitative interview study using purposive sampling of those living with and providing care in multimorbidity.

Results

Increased support to those with multimorbidity and caregivers to navigate care systems was advocated. Establishing trusting care relationships featured prominently in participants accounts. Fragmented care, inadequate coordination and poor communication between care providers, were identified as system-wide challenges. There was agreement that integrated care models were needed, which delivered personalised care, such as shared decision-making, choice in care options and accessing services, and individualised care plans.

Conclusion

We found significant agreement among stakeholders on care need and management in multimorbidity. Understanding the experiences of those with multimorbidity, caregivers and care professionals, can inform future improvements in care management.

Statins for primary prevention in multimorbid patients: to prescribe or not to prescribe? A qualitative analysis of general practitioners' decision-making processes

INTRODUCTION

A better understanding of the determinants involved in general practitioners' (GPs) decision-making processes when it comes to prescribing statins as primary prevention in patients with multimorbidity could provide insights for improving implementation of primary prevention guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using a deductive framework-based and inductive analysis of GPs' semi-structured interviews verbatim, from which expertise profiles of prescribers were also drawn. The analytical framework was built from a pragmatic synthesis of the evidence-based medicine, Modelling using Typified Objects (MOT) model of clinical reasoning processes, Theoretical Domains Framework, and shared decision-making frameworks.

RESULTS

Fifteen GPs were interviewed between June 2019 and January 2020. Diabetes seemed to represent a specific motivation for deciding about statin prescription for primary prevention purposes; and in situations of multimorbidity, GPs differentiated between cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular multimorbidity. Expert prescribers seemed to have integrated the utilisation of cardiovascular risk calculation scores throughout their practice, whereas non-expert prescribers considered them difficult to interpret and preferred using more of a "rule of thumb" process. One interviewee used the risk calculation score as a support for discussing statin prescription with the patient.

CONCLUSION

Our results shed light on the reasons why statins remain under-prescribed for primary prevention and why non-diabetic multimorbid patients have even lower odds of being prescribed a statin. They call for a change in the use of risk assessment scores, by placing them as decision aids, to support and improve personalised shared decision-making discussions as an efficient approach to improve the implementation of recommendations about statins for primary prevention.

Development of a Person-Centred Integrated Care Approach for Chronic Disease Management in Dutch Primary Care: A Mixed-Method Study

To reduce the burden of chronic diseases on society and individuals, European countries implemented chronic Disease Management Programs (DMPs) that focus on the management of a single chronic disease. However, due to the fact that the scientific evidence that DMPs reduce the burden of chronic diseases is not convincing, patients with multimorbidity may receive overlapping or conflicting treatment advice, and a single disease approach may be conflicting with the core competencies of primary care. In addition, in the Netherlands, care is shifting from DMPs to person-centred integrated care (PC-IC) approaches. This paper describes a mixed-method development of a PC-IC approach for the management of patients with one or more chronic diseases in Dutch primary care, executed from March 2019 to July 2020. In Phase 1, we conducted a scoping review and document analysis to identify key elements to construct a conceptual model for delivering PC-IC care. In Phase 2, national experts on Diabetes Mellitus type 2, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and local healthcare providers (HCP) commented on the conceptual model using online qualitative surveys. In Phase 3, patients with chronic conditions commented on the conceptual model in individual interviews, and in Phase 4 the conceptual model was presented to the local primary care cooperatives and finalized after processing their comments. Based on the scientific literature, current practice guidelines, and input from a variety of stakeholders, we developed a holistic, person-centred, integrated approach for the management of patients with (multiple) chronic diseases in primary care. Future evaluation of the PC-IC approach will show if this approach leads to more favourable outcomes and should replace the current single-disease approach in the management of chronic conditions and multimorbidity in Dutch primary care.

Differences in Demographics of Vaccinees, Access to, and Satisfaction with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Procedures between German General Practices and Mass Vaccination Centers

In the European Union, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines became available in December 2020. The vaccination campaign in Germany was initially implemented through mass vaccination centers and later joined by general practitioners (GPs) in spring 2021. This study compared population characteristics, perceived access barriers, and satisfaction with the vaccination procedure between vaccination centers and GP practices. A paper-based survey was distributed (07/2021-10/2021) among newly vaccinated individuals in ten GP practices (n = 364) and two vaccine centers (n = 474). Participants in vaccine centers were younger compared to participants in GP practices. GP preference was higher in older participants and those with pre-existing illnesses. Wait time at vaccination site was longer in GP practices, whereas travel distance to site was longer for participants in vaccine centers. However, satisfaction with patient education and recommendation of site were more likely with increasing comprehensibility of the vaccination procedure and physicians' information as well as perceived sufficiency of patient education duration, factors that can be easily modified by all vaccination sites. Our results demonstrate that both types of vaccination sites complement each other in terms of accessibility and target population and that satisfaction with the vaccination procedure can be promoted at all sites by an easy-to-understand process.

Balancing standardisation and individualisation in transitional care pathways: a meta-ethnography of the perspectives of older patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Transitional care implies the transfer of patients within or across care settings in a seamless and safe way. For frail, older patients with complex health issues, high-quality transitions are especially important as these patients typically move more frequently within healthcare settings, requiring treatment from different providers. As transitions of care for frail people are considered risky, securing the quality and safety of these transitions is of great international interest. Nevertheless, despite efforts to improve quality in transitional care, research indicates that there is a lack of clear guidance to deal with practical challenges that may arise. The aim of this article is to synthesise older patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals' experiences of challenges to achieving high-quality transitional care.

METHODS

We used the seven-step method for meta-ethnography originally developed by Noblit and Hare. In four different but connected qualitative projects, the authors investigated the challenges to transitional care for older people in the Norwegian healthcare system from the perspectives of older patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals. In this paper, we highlight and discuss the cruciality of these challenging issues by synthesising the results from twelve articles.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in four themes: i) balancing person-centred versus efficient care, ii) balancing everyday patient life versus the treatment of illness, iii) balancing user choice versus "What Matters to You", and iv) balancing relational versus practical care. These expressed challenges represent tensions at the system, organisation and individual levels based on partial competing assumptions on person-centred-care-inspired individualisation endeavours and standardisation requirements in transitional care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for a clearer understanding of the tension between standardisation and individualisation in transitional care pathways for older patients to ensure better healthcare quality for patients and more realistic working environments for healthcare professionals. Incorporating a certain professional flexibility within the wider boundary of standardisation may give healthcare professionals room for negotiation to meet patients' individual needs, while at the same time ensuring patient flow, equity and evidence-based practice.

Priorities and preferences for care of people with multiple chronic conditions

Background

To guide the development of high‐quality care for people with multiple chronic conditions, partners of the European Joint Action CHRODIS developed the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model. To assess its suitability for improving care for people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, the model was piloted in a primary care setting with both patients and care providers.

Aim

This paper reports on the patient perspective, and aims to explore the priorities, underlying values and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity.

Participants and methods

Twenty persons with multimorbidity (selected from general practice registries) participated in a focus group or telephone interview. Subsequently, a questionnaire was completed by 863 persons with multimorbidity registered with 14 general practices. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data by means of descriptive statistics.

Results

Frequently prioritized elements of care were the use of shared electronic health records, regular comprehensive assessments, self‐management support and shared decision making, and care coordination. Preferences for how these elements should be specifically addressed differed according to individual values (eg weighing safety against privacy) and needs (eg ways of coping with multimorbidity).

Conclusion

The JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model reflects the priorities and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, which supports its relevance to guide the development of person‐centred integrated care for people with multiple chronic conditions in the Netherlands.

Patient contribution

European patient experts contributed to the development and applicability assessment of the JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model; Dutch patients participated in focus groups, interviews and a survey.