The increasing burden and complexity of multimorbidity

Living with multimorbidity: A qualitative exploration of shared experiences of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in managing symptoms in the United States

AIMS

To elicit experiences of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in intermediate care units (IMCUs) in an academic medical centre in Baltimore, MD related to the challenges and intricacies of multimorbidity management to inform development of a multimorbidity symptom management toolkit.

DESIGN

Experience-based co-design.

METHODS

Between July and October 2021, patients aged 55 years and older with multimorbidity admitted to IMCUs at an academic medical centre in Baltimore, Maryland, USA were recruited and interviewed in person. Interdisciplinary healthcare professionals working in the IMCU were interviewed virtually. Participants were asked questions about their role in recognizing and treating symptoms, factors affecting the quality of life, symptom burden and trajectory over time, and strategies that have and have not worked for managing symptoms. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three interviews were conducted: 9 patients, 2 family caregivers, and 12 healthcare professionals. Patients' mean age was 67.5 (±6.5) years, over half (n = 5) were Black or Hispanic, and the average number of comorbidities was 3.67. Five major themes that affect symptom management emerged: (1) the patient-provider relationship; (2) open and honest communication; (3) accessibility of resources during hospitalization and at discharge; (4) caregiver support, training, and education; and (5) care coordination and follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different priorities for multimorbidity management. It is imperative to identify shared priorities and target holistic interventions that consider patient and caregiver experiences to improve outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE AND IMPACT

This paper addresses the paucity of research related to the shared experience of disease trajectory and symptom management for people living with multimorbidity. We found that patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different care and communication priorities. Understanding differing priorities will help better design interventions to support symptom management so people with multimorbidity can have the best possible quality of life.

REPORTING METHOD

We have adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) guidelines in our reporting.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study has been designed and implemented with patient and public involvement throughout the process, including community advisory board engagement in the project proposal phase and interview guide development, and member checking in the data collection and analysis phases. The method we chose, experience-based co-design, emphasizes the importance of engaging members of a community to act as experts in their own life challenges. In the coming phases of the study, the public will be involved in developing and testing a new intervention, informed by these qualitative interviews and co-design events, to support symptom management for people with multimorbidity.

Multimorbidity measures from health administrative data using ICD system codes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify and characterize adult population-based multimorbidity measures using health administrative data and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for disease identification.

METHODS

We performed a narrative systematic review of studies using or describing development or validation of multimorbidity measures. We compared the number of diseases included in the measures, the process of data extraction (case definition) and the validation process. We assessed the methodological robustness using eight criteria, five based on general criteria for indicators (AIRE instrument) and three multimorbidity-specific criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-two multimorbidity measures were identified. The number of diseases they included ranged from 5 to 84 (median = 20), with 19 measures including both physical and mental conditions. Diseases were identified using ICD codes extracted from inpatient and outpatient data (18/22) and sometimes including drug claims (10/22). The validation process relied mainly on the capacity of the measures to predict health outcome (5/22), or on the validation of each individual disease against a gold standard (8/22). Six multimorbidity measures met at least six of the eight robustness criteria assessed.

CONCLUSION

There is significant heterogeneity among the measures used to assess multimorbidity in administrative databases, and about a third are of low to moderate quality. A more consensual approach to the number of diseases or groups of diseases included in multimorbidity measures may improve comparison between regions, and potentially provide better control for multimorbidity-related confounding in studies.