Multimorbidity and delivery of care for long-term conditions in the English National Health Service: baseline data from a cohort study

Effect of Family Practice Contract Services on the Perceived Quality of Primary Care among Patients with Multimorbidity: A Cross-Sectional Study in Guangdong, China

Family practice contract services, an important primary-care reform policy for improving primary healthcare quality in China, incorporate patients with multiple chronic conditions into the priority coverage groups and focus on their management. This study aims to explore the family practice contract services' effectiveness in improving the quality of primary care experienced by this population. A cross-sectional study using a three-stage sampling was conducted from January to March 2019 in Guangdong, China. A multivariable linear regression, including interaction terms, was applied to examine the associations between the contract services and primary care quality among people with different chronic conditions. The process quality of primary care was measured in six dimensions using the validated assessment survey of primary care (ASPC) scale. People with contract services scored higher in terms of quality of primary care than those without contract services. Contract services moderated the association between chronic condition status and primary care quality. Significantly positive interactions were observed in the patient-centred care dimension and negative interactions were reflected in the accessibility dimension. Our findings suggest that family practice contract services play a crucial role in improving patient-perceived primary care quality and provide emerging evidence that patients with multimorbidity tend to benefit more from the services, especially in patient-centred care.

Helping persons with multiple chronic conditions overcome barriers to self-management

ABSTRACT

The prevalence of multiple chronic conditions is growing dramatically, which complicates day-to-day self-management for patients. This article describes the features of multiple chronic conditions, an updated chronic care model, barriers to self-management, and strategies NPs can use to reduce or eliminate barriers to self-management in adults with multiple chronic conditions.

Self-management strategies and comorbidities in chronic disease patients: associations with quality of life and depression

Self-management strategies are essential for improving prognosis in chronic illnesses. This study aimed to investigate the association between comorbidity and self-management strategies. A total of 700 patients with one or more chronic diseases including diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, osteoporosis, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease and arthritis were enrolled. A questionnaire including the Smart Management Strategy for Health Assessment Tool Short Form (SAT), the Short Form-12, the McGill Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was administered to participants. The trend of each SAT according to number of comorbidities was evaluated, and the difference in quality of life and depression according to self-management strategies was examined in the model classified by the number of diseases. Self-management strategy scores tended to decrease as the number of comorbidities increased from one to four (p-value: 0.001 to 0.008). Regardless of the number of comorbidities, the MQOL score was higher in the good self-management strategy group (p: <0.001 to 0.016). The prevalence of mild depression was higher in patients with low self-management strategy, but the differences were not significant. Based on these findings, self-management strategies should be evaluated multidimensionally, and patients should be encouraged to develop effective self-management strategies to manage multiple chronic diseases.

Characteristics of self-management among patients with complex health needs: a thematic analysis review

OBJECTIVE

There is a gap of knowledge among healthcare providers on characteristics of self-management among patients with chronic diseases and complex healthcare needs. Consequently, the objective of this paper was to identify characteristics of self-management among patients with chronic diseases and complex healthcare needs.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis review of the literature.

METHODS

We developed search strategies for the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases, covering the January 2000-October 2018 period. All articles in English or French addressing self-management among an adult clientele (18 years and older) with complex healthcare needs (multimorbidity, vulnerability, complexity and frequent use of health services) were included. Studies that addressed self-management of a single disease or that did not have any notion of complexity or vulnerability were excluded. A mixed thematic analysis, deductive and inductive, was performed by three evaluators as described by Mileset al.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included. Patients with complex healthcare needs present specific features related to self-management that can be exacerbated by deprived socioeconomic conditions. These patients must often prioritise care based on one dominant condition. They are at risk for depression, psychological distress and low self-efficacy, as well as for receiving contradictory information from healthcare providers. However, the knowledge and experiences acquired in the past in relation to their condition may help them improve their self-management skills.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies challenges to self-management for patients with complex healthcare needs, which are exacerbated in contexts of socioeconomic insecurity and proposes strategies to help healthcare providers better adapt their self-management support interventions to meet the specific needs of this vulnerable clientele.

Safety work and risk management as burdens of treatment in primary care: insights from a focused ethnographic study of patients with multimorbidity

Background

In primary health care, patient safety failures can arise in service access, doctor-patient relationships, communication between care providers, relational and management continuity, or technical procedures. Through the lens of multimorbidty, and using qualitative ethnographic methods, our study aimed to illuminate safety issues in primary care.

Methods

Data were triangulated from electronic health records (EHRs); observation of primary care consultations; annual interviews with patients, (informal) care providers and GPs. A thematic analysis of observation, interview and field note material sought to describe the patient safety issues encountered and any associated factors or processes. A more detailed longitudinal description of 6 cases was used to contextualise safety issues identified in observation, interviews and EHRs.

Results

Twenty-six patients were recruited. Events which could lead to harm were found in all areas of a framework based on published literature. “Under” and “over” consultation as a precursor of safety failures emerged through thematic analysis of observation and interview material. Other findings concerned workload (for doctors and patients) and the limitations of short consultation times. There were differences in health data collected directly from the patients versus that found in EHRs. Examples included reference to a stroke history and diagnoses for CKD and hypertension. Case study analysis revealed specific issues which appeared contextual to safety concerns, mostly around the management of polypharmacy and patient medication adherence. Clinical imperatives appear around risk management, but the study findings point to a potential conflict with patient expectations around investigation, diagnosis and treatment.

Discussion

Patient safety work involves further burdens on top of existing workload for both clinicians and patients. In this conceptualisation, safety work seemingly forms part of a negative feedback loop with patient safety itself. A line of argument drawn from the triangulation of findings from different sources, points to a tension between the desirability of a minimally disruptive medicine versus safety risks possibly associated with ‘under’ or ‘over’ consultation. Multimorbidity acts as a magnifier of tensions in the delivery of health services and quality care in general practice. More attention should be put on system design than patient or professional behaviour.

Self-management assessment in multiple chronic conditions: A narrative review of literature

OBJECTIVES

Effective self-management in individuals with multiple chronic conditions is necessary to optimize health outcomes. Self-management in multiple chronic conditions involves an iterative process prioritizing multiple changing needs/conditions. However, self-management in multiple chronic conditions has been assessed with instruments designed to assess self-management of a single chronic illness. The instruments may not address the complexity of self-management in multiple chronic conditions. Thus, this review aimed to examine how self-management has been operationalized in the context of multiple chronic conditions.

DESIGN

A narrative review method was used.

DATA SOURCE

The online databases, Pubmed, CINAHL Plus, and PsycInfo, were searched. The search was conducted of the database from January 2006 through November 2017.

REVIEW METHODS

Peer-reviewed research articles which operationalized self-management in adults with at least two or more chronic illnesses were selected for review. Two reviewers read full text of selected articles and extracted data regarding operational definitions of self-management and instruments used to assess self-management. Operational definitions were categorized to conceptualize how self-management has been assessed.

RESULTS

A total of seven peer-reviewed research articles were selected for inclusion. This review found that self-management has been assessed through prerequisites of self-management and behaviors involved in self-management. Prerequisites of self-management included attitude, self-efficacy, perceived ability, and knowledge. Behaviors included an individual's engagement in self-management such as health-related behaviors, health service use, and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed that current literature does not operationalize self-management in multiple chronic conditions as a process, indicating incomplete assessments of self-management. To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of self-management in multiple chronic conditions, future studies should consider self-management as an iterative process in addition to prerequisites for self-management and behaviors. Such studies will inform the development of patient-centered self-management interventions for individuals with multiple chronic conditions.

Empowering people to help speak up about safety in primary care: Using codesign to involve patients and professionals in developing new interventions for patients with multimorbidity

Background

Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more long‐term conditions, is increasingly common in primary care, and patients with multimorbidity may face particular barriers to quality of care and increased safety risks due to the complexity of managing multiple conditions. Consistent with calls to directly involve service users in improving care, we aimed to use design materials to codesign new interventions to improve safety in primary care.

Design

We drew on two established methods—accelerated experience‐based codesign and the future workshop approach. We synthesized design materials based on research into the patient experience of safety and multimorbidity in primary care to enable both patients, service users and carers, and primary health‐care professionals to propose interventions to improve care.

Results

Both patients and professionals prioritized polypharmacy as a threat to safety. Their recommendations for supportive interventions were consistent with Burden of Treatment theory, emphasizing the limited capacity of patients with multimorbidity and the need for services to proactively offer support to reduce the burden of managing complex treatment regimes.

Discussion & Conclusions

The process was feasible and acceptable to participants, who valued the opportunity to jointly propose new interventions. The iterative workshop approach enabled the research team to better explore and refine the suggestions of attendees. Final recommendations included the need for accessible reminders to support medication adherence and medication reviews for particularly vulnerable patients conducted with pharmacists within GP practices.

Wounds research for patient benefit: a 5-year programme of research

Background

Complex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved.

Objectives

To (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority.

Methods

To meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Results

From the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high.

Conclusions

Complex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Multimorbidity and Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is increasingly prevalent and represents a major challenge in primary care. Patients with multimorbidity are potentially more likely to experience safety incidents due to the complexity of their needs and frequency of their interactions with health services. However, rigorous syntheses of the link between patient safety incidents and multimorbidity are not available. This review examined the relationship between multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care.

METHODS

We followed our published protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007434). Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched up to May 2015. Study design and quality were assessed. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the associations between multimorbidity and two categories of patient safety outcomes: 'active patient safety incidents' (such as adverse drug events and medical complications) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (such as prescription errors, medication non-adherence, poor quality of care and diagnostic errors). Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken.

RESULTS

Eighty six relevant comparisons from 75 studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that physical-mental multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for 'active patient safety incidents' (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.38) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.03). Physical multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for active safety incidents (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.45 to 1.80) but was not associated with precursors of safety incidents (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.13). Statistical heterogeneity was high and the methodological quality of the studies was generally low.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between multimorbidity and patient safety is complex, and varies by type of multimorbidity and type of safety incident. Our analyses suggest that multimorbidity involving mental health may be a key driver of safety incidents, which has important implication for the design and targeting of interventions to improve safety. High quality studies examining the mechanisms of patient safety incidents in patients with multimorbidity are needed, with the goal of promoting effective service delivery and ameliorating threats to safety in this group of patients.

What are the core predictors of 'hassles' among patients with multimorbidity in primary care? A cross sectional study

Background

A limitation of service delivery in primary care in the United Kingdom is that services are often organised to manage discrete long-term conditions, using guidelines related to single conditions, and managed in clinics organised around single conditions. However, many older patients have more than one condition (so called multimorbidity). Qualitative research suggests that these patients experience ‘hassles’ in their care, including multiple appointments, poor co-ordination, and conflicting recommendations. However, there is limited quantitative evidence on the ‘hassles’ that patients with multimorbidity experience, or factors predicting ‘hassles’ in patients with multimorbidity.

Methods

We conducted a cross sectional study, mailing questionnaires to 1460 patients with multimorbidity identified from the disease registers of four general practices in the UK. Patients were asked to complete a range of self-report measures including measures of multimorbidity, measures of their experience of multimorbidity and service delivery. Data were analysed using regression modelling to assess the factors predicting ‘hassles’ in patients with multimorbidity.

Results

In total 33 % (n = 486) of patients responded to the baseline survey. The ‘hassles’ most often reported by patients related to lack of information about conditions and treatment options, poor communication among health professionals, and poor access to specialist care. There was a significant relationship between numbers of conditions, and reports of ‘hassles’. In multivariate analysis, 5 variables predicted more ‘hassles’: more long-term conditions, symptoms of anxiety and depression, younger age, being in paid employment, and not having a discussion with their GP in the last 12 months.

Conclusion

Hassles are frequently reported by patients with multimorbidity in primary care. A priority for future research should be on the development of new models of care that better cater for these patients. This research highlights core hassles that need to be addressed, and the patient groups that are most at risk, which may aid in the design of these new models.

Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey

OBJECTIVES

To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Using questionnaire data from 906,578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583,143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale.

RESULTS

Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care.

Better management of multimorbidity: a critical look at the 'Ariadne principles'

Primary care clinicians and researchers are growing increasingly aware of the prevalence of multimorbidity among long-term conditions, and the impact on patient experience, health, and utilisation of care. The correspondence paper by Muth et al. entitled 'The Ariadne principles: how to handle multimorbidity in primary care consultations' outlines new thinking on a better way to manage the challenges of decision-making in multimorbidity. The paper highlights the importance of shared treatment goals as a fundamental basis for more effective management. Although a welcome contribution to the literature, the principles raise a number of challenges: the complexities of achieving effective patient-centred assessment and goal-setting; how best to encourage implementation of new practices; and the current state of the evidence around multimorbidity and its management.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/223.

Evaluating the Labour Government's English NHS health system reforms: the 2008 Darzi reforms

Starting in 2002, the UK Labour Government of 1997-2010 introduced a series of changes to the National Health Service (NHS) in England designed to increase patients' choices of the place of elective hospital care and encourage competition among public and private providers of elective hospital services for NHS-funded patients. In 2006, the Department of Health initiated the Health Reform Evaluation Programme (HREP) to assess the impact of the changes. In June 2008, the White Paper, High quality care for all, was published. It represented the government's desire to focus the next phase of health care system reform in England as much on the quality of care as on improving its responsiveness and efficiency. The 2008 White Paper led to the commissioning of a further wave of evaluative research under the auspices of HREP, as follows: an evaluation of the implementation and outcomes of care planning for people with long-term conditions; an evaluation of the personal health budget pilots; an evaluation of the implementation and outcomes of the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) framework; and an evaluation of cultural and behavioural change in the NHS focused on ensuring high quality care for all. This Supplement includes papers from each project. The evaluations present a mixed picture of the impact and success of the 2008 reforms. All the studies identify some limitations of the policies in the White Paper. The introduction of personal health budgets appears to have been the least problematic and, depending on assumptions, likely to be cost-effective for the sorts of patients involved in the pilot. For the rest of the changes, impacts ranged from little or none (CQUIN and care planning for people with chronic conditions) to patchy and highly variable (instilling a culture of quality in acute hospitals) in the three years following the publication of the White Paper. On the other hand, each of the studies identifies important insights relevant to modifying and improving the policies. These findings have continuing relevance since both the 2008 White Paper's policies, and the issues they were focused on remedying, remain central to the current Coalition Government's reform agenda.

MAXimising Involvement in MUltiMorbidity (MAXIMUM) in primary care: protocol for an observation and interview study of patients, GPs and other care providers to identify ways of reducing patient safety failures

INTRODUCTION

Increasing numbers of older people are living with multiple long-term health conditions but global healthcare systems and clinical guidelines have traditionally focused on the management of single conditions. Having two or more long-term conditions, or 'multimorbidity', is associated with a range of adverse consequences and poor outcomes and could put patients at increased risk of safety failures. Traditionally, most research into patient safety failures has explored hospital or inpatient settings. Much less is known about patient safety failures in primary care. Our core aims are to understand the mechanisms by which multimorbidity leads to safety failures, to explore the different ways in which patients and services respond (or fail to respond), and to identify opportunities for intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We plan to undertake an applied ethnographic study of patients with multimorbidity. Patients' interactions and environments, relevant to their healthcare, will be studied through observations, diary methods and semistructured interviews. A framework, based on previous studies, will be used to organise the collection and analysis of field notes, observations and other qualitative data. This framework includes the domains: access breakdowns, communication breakdowns, continuity of care errors, relationship breakdowns and technical errors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was received from the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee for Wales. An individual case study approach is likely to be most fruitful for exploring the mechanisms by which multimorbidity leads to safety failures. A longitudinal and multiperspective approach will allow for the constant comparison of patient, carer and healthcare worker expectations and experiences related to the provision, integration and management of complex care. This data will be used to explore ways of engaging patients and carers more in their own care using shared decision-making, patient empowerment or other relevant models.