Use of hospital care services by chronic patients according to their characteristics and risk levels by adjusted morbidity groups

Prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy among adults and older adults: a systematic review

Multimorbidity (multiple conditions) and polypharmacy (multiple medications) are increasingly common, yet there is a need to better understand the prevalence of co-occurrence. In this systematic review, we examined the prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy among adults (≥18 years) and older adults (≥65 years) in clinical and community settings. Six electronic databases were searched, and 87 studies were retained after two levels of screening. Most studies focused on adults 65 years and older and were done in population-based community settings. Although the operational definitions of multimorbidity and polypharmacy varied across studies, consistent cut-points (two or more conditions and five or more medications) were used across most studies. In older adult samples, the prevalence of multimorbidity ranged from 4·8% to 93·1%, while the prevalence of polypharmacy ranged from 2·6% to 86·6%. High heterogeneity between studies indicates the need for more consistent reporting of specific lists of conditions and medications used in operational definitions.

[Predictive validity of Clinical Risk Groups in chronic patients in primary healthcare]

OBJECTIVE

To analyse a prediction model for admissions and hospital emergencies based on Clinical Risk Groups, in a population of complex chronic patients demanding primary care.

DESIGN

A multicentric retrospective observational study, of a cohort of chronic patients with comorbidity, from January until December 2013.

PLACE

The study population was assigned to the Santa Pola and Raval health centres from the Health Department of Elche.

PARTICIPANTS

Cohort of chronic patients with comorbidity, from January to December 2013.

INTERVENTIONS

Data about the number of admissions, reasons and complexity level associated with the admission were collected by the review of medical records.

MAIN MEASURES

To determine the level of complexity, the classification included in the chronicity strategy of the Valencian Community based on Clinical Risk Groups was used.

RESULTS

Five hundred and four patients were recruited with a high complexity degree (N3) and 272 with moderate/low complexity (N1-N2). A higher comorbidity was observed in N3 patients with high complexity [Charlson 2.9 (DE 1.8) vs. 1.9 (DE 1.3); P<.001], and higher dependence degree for basic diary activities [Barthel 16.1 (n=81) vs. 7.3 (n=20); P<.001]. Association between the number of admissions [0.4 (DE 0.8) vs. 0.1 (DE 0.5); P<.001] and emergency visits [0.8 (DE 1.5) vs. 0.3 (DE 0.8), P<.001] was significatively higher in patients from N3 group than N1-N2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive capacity of CRG grouper showed high sensibility for the patient classification with a high degree of complexity. Its specificity and positive predictive value were lower for the association of the N3 complexity stratum.