Prevalence of multimorbidity in general practice: a cross-sectional study within the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance System (Sentinella).

To estimate the prevalence of multimorbidity using a list of 75 chronic conditions derived from the International Classification for Primary Care, Second edition and developed specifically to assess multimorbidity in primary care. Our aim was also to provide prevalence data for multimorbidity in primary care in a country in which general practitioners (GPs) do not play a gatekeeping role in the health system. A representative sample of GPs within the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network. 118 GPs completed a paper-based questionnaire about 25 consecutive patients of all ages between September and November 2015. There were no patient exclusion criteria. Recorded data included date of birth, gender and the patients' chronic conditions. We estimated the prevalence of multimorbidity, defined as ≥2, and ≥3 chronic conditions stratified by gender and age group, and adjusted for clustering by GPs. We also computed the prevalence of each chronic condition individually and grouped by system. Data from 2904 patients were included (mean age (SD)=56.5 (20.5) years; male=43.7%). Prevalence was 52.1% (95% CI 48.6% to 55.5%) for ≥2 and 35.0% (95% CI 31.6% to 38.5%) for ≥3 chronic conditions, with no significant gender differences. Prevalence of two or more chronic conditions was low (6.2%, 95% CI 2.8% to 13.0%) in those below 20 but affected more than 85% (85.8%, 95% CI 79.6% to 90.3%) of those above the age of 80. The most prevalent conditions were cardiovascular (42.7%, 95% CI 39.7% to 45.7%), psychological (28.5%, 95% CI 26.1% to 31.1%) and metabolic or endocrine disorders (24.1%, 95% CI 21.6% to 26.7%). Elevated blood pressure was the most prevalent cardiovascular condition and depression the most common psychological disorder. In a country in which GPs do not play a gatekeeping role within the health system, the prevalence of multimorbidity, as assessed using a list of chronic conditions specifically relevant to primary care, is high and increases with age

Comparing the self-perceived quality of life of multimorbid patients and the general population using the EQ-5D-3L.

To assess and compare the self-perceived Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of multimorbid patients and the general population using health utilities (HU) and visual analogue scale (VAS) methods. We analyzed data (n = 888) from a national, cross-sectional Swiss study of multimorbid patients recruited in primary care settings. Self-perceived HRQoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-3L instrument, composed of 1) a questionnaire on the five dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (EQ-5D dimensions), and 2) a 0-100 (0 = worst- and 100 = best-imaginable health status) VAS. We described the EQ-5D dimensions and VAS and computed HU using a standard pan-European value set. HU and VAS are the two components of the overall HRQoL assessment. We examined the proportions of multimorbid patients reporting problems (moderate/severe) in each EQ-5D dimension, corresponding proportions without problems, and mean HU and VAS values across patient characteristics. To test differences between subgroups, we used chi-square tests for dichotomous outcomes and T-tests (ANOVA if more than two groups) for continuous outcomes. Finally, we compared observed and predicted HU and VAS values. All 888 participants answered every EQ-5D item. Mean (SD) HU and VAS values were 0.70 (0.18) and 63.2 (19.2), respectively. HU and VAS were considerably and significantly lower in multimorbid patients than in the general population and were also lower in multimorbid patients below 60 years old and in women. Differences between observed and predicted means (SD) were -0.07 (0.18) for HU and -11.8 (20.3) for VAS. Self-perceived HRQoL is considerably and significantly affected by multimorbidity. More attention should be given to developing interventions that improve the HRQoL of multimorbid patients, particularly women and those aged below 60 years old

Family practitioners' top medical priorities when managing patients with multimorbidity: a cross-sectional study.

Managing multiple chronic and acute conditions in patients with multimorbidity requires setting medical priorities. How family practitioners (FPs) rank medical priorities between highly, moderately, or rarely prevalent chronic conditions (CCs) has never been described. The authors hypothesised that there was no relationship between the prevalence of CCs and their medical priority ranking in individual patients with multimorbidity. To describe FPs' medical priority ranking of conditions relative to their prevalence in patients with multimorbidity. This cross-sectional study of 100 FPs in Switzerland included patients with ≥3 CCs on a predefined list of 75 items from the International Classification of Primary Care 2 (ICPC-2); other conditions could be added. FPs ranked all conditions by their medical priority. Priority ranking and distribution were calculated for each condition separately and for the top three priorities together. The sample contained 888 patients aged 28-98 years (mean 73), of which 48.2% were male. Included patients had 3-19 conditions (median 7; interquantile range [IQR] 6-9). FPs used 74/75 CCs from the predefined list, of which 27 were highly prevalent (>5%). In total, 336 different conditions were recorded. Highly prevalent CCs were only the top medical priority in 66%, and the first three priorities in 33%, of cases. No correlation was found between prevalence and the ranking of medical priorities. FPs faced a great diversity of different conditions in their patients with multimorbidity, with nearly every condition being found at nearly every rank of medical priority, depending on the patient. Medical priority ranking was independent of the prevalence of CCs

Multimorbidity and patterns of chronic conditions in a primary care population in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study

To characterise in details a random sample of multimorbid patients in Switzerland and to evaluate the clustering of chronic conditions in that sample. 100 general practitioners (GPs) each enrolled 10 randomly selected multimorbid patients aged ≥18 years old and suffering from at least three chronic conditions. The prevalence of 75 separate chronic conditions from the International Classification of Primary Care-2 (ICPC-2) was evaluated in these patients. Clusters of chronic conditions were studied in parallel. The final database included 888 patients. Mean (SD) patient age was 73.0 (12.0) years old. They suffered from 5.5 (2.2) chronic conditions and were prescribed 7.7 (3.5) drugs; 25.7% suffered from depression. Psychological conditions were more prevalent among younger individuals (≤66 years old). Cluster analysis of chronic conditions with a prevalence ≥5% in the sample revealed four main groups of conditions: (1) cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, (2) general age-related and metabolic conditions, (3) tobacco and alcohol dependencies, and (4) pain, musculoskeletal and psychological conditions. Given the emerging epidemic of multimorbidity in industrialised countries, accurately depicting the multiple expressions of multimorbidity in family practices' patients is a high priority. Indeed, even in a setting where patients have direct access to medical specialists, GPs nevertheless retain a key role as coordinators and often as the sole medical reference for multimorbid patients

Determinants associated with deprivation in multimorbid patients in primary care-A cross-sectional study in Switzerland

Deprivation usually encompasses material, social, and health components. It has been shown to be associated with greater risks of developing chronic health conditions and of worse outcome in multimorbidity. The DipCare questionnaire, an instrument developed and validated in Switzerland for use in primary care, identifies patients subject to potentially higher levels of deprivation. To identifying determinants of the material, social, and health profiles associated with deprivation in a sample of multimorbid, primary care patients, and thus set priorities in screening for deprivation in this population. Secondary analysis from a nationwide cross-sectional study in Switzerland. A random sample of 886 adult patients suffering from at least three chronic health conditions. The outcomes of interest were the patients' levels of deprivation as measured using the DipCare questionnaire. Classification And Regression Tree analysis identified the independent variables that separated the examined population into groups with increasing deprivation scores. Finally, a sensitivity analysis (multivariate regression) confirmed the robustness of our results. Being aged under 64 years old was associated with higher overall, material, and health deprivation; being aged over 77 years old was associated with higher social deprivation. Other variables associated with deprivation were the level of education, marital status, and the presence of depression or chronic pain. Specific profiles, such as being younger, were associated with higher levels of overall, material, and health deprivation in multimorbid patients. In contrast, patients over 77 years old reported higher levels of social deprivation. Furthermore, chronic pain and depression added to the score for health deprivation. It is important that GPs consider the possibility of deprivation in these multimorbid patients and are able to identify it, both in order to encourage treatment adherence and limit any forgoing of care for financial reasons

Educational outreach in an integrated clinical management tool for nurse-led non-communicable chronic disease management in primary care in South Africa: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: In many low-income countries, care for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health conditions is provided by nurses. The benefits of nurse substitution and supplementation in NCD care in high income settings are well recognised, but evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited. Primary Care 101 (PC101) is a programme designed to support and expand nurses’ role in NCD care, comprising a clinical management tool with enhanced prescribing provisions for nurses, and educational outreach. We evaluated the effectiveness of the programme on primary care nurses’ capacity to manage NCDs (ISRCTN20283604). Methods and findings: In a cluster randomised controlled trial design, 38 public sector primary care clinics in the Western Cape province, South Africa, were randomised. Nurses in the intervention clinics were trained to use the PC101 management tool during educational outreach sessions delivered by health department trainers and authorised to prescribe an expanded range of drugs for several NCDs. Control clinics continued use of the Practical Approach to Lung Health and HIV /AIDS in South Africa (PALSA PLUS) management tool and usual training. Patients attending these clinics with one or more of hypertension (3227), diabetes (1842), chronic respiratory disease (1157) or screened positive for depression (2466), totalling 4393 patients, were enrolled between March 2011 and October 2011. Primary outcomes were treatment intensification for hypertension, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease cohorts, defined as the proportion of patients in whom treatment was escalated during follow-up over 14 months, and case detection in the depression cohort. Primary outcome data were analysed for 2110 (97%) intervention and 2170 (97%) control group patients. Treatment intensification rates in intervention clinics were not superior to those in the control group clinics [hypertension: 44% in the intervention group versus 40% in the controls, risk ratio (RR) 1.08 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.24; p=0.252); diabetes: 57% v 50%, RR 1.10 (0.97 to 1.24;p=0.126); chronic respiratory disease: 14% v 12%, RR 1.08 (0.75 to 1.55; p=0.674); and case detection of depression: 18% v 24%, RR 0.76 (0.53 to 1.10; p=0.142)]. No adverse effects of the nurses’ expanded scope of practice were observed. Limitations of the study include dependence on self-reported diagnoses for inclusion in the patient cohorts, limited data on uptake of PC101 by users, reliance on process outcomes, and insufficient resources to measure important health outcomes, such as HbA1c, at follow-up. Conclusions: Educational outreach to primary care nurses through use of a management tool involving an expanded role in managing NCDs, is feasible and safe but was not associated with treatment intensification or case detection for index diseases. This notwithstanding, the intervention, with adjustments to improve its effectiveness, has been adopted for implementation in primary care clinics throughout South Africa

La multimorbidité en médecine de famille du point de vue du médecin et du patient: une banque de données nationale [Multimorbidity in primary care from GPs' and patients' perspectives: a national database]

Multimorbidity is often synonym with complexity and generally implies multiple medical treatments. In many cases, treatment guidelines traditionally defined for single conditions are not easily applicable. Primary care for individuals with multimorbidity requires complex patient-centered care and good communication between the patient and the general practitioner (GP). This often includes prioritizing among the different chronic conditions. The burden related to multimorbidity from the GP and the patients' perspective, as well as the prioritization of care between in patients with multimorbidity, has not been studied extensively yet. We report here the preliminary results of a national research aiming at characterizing these aspects in a sample of patients identified through their GP and suffering from at least 3 chronic conditions

Stratégies de priorisation dans la prise en charge des patients multimorbides en médecine de famille [Prioritization strategies in the care of multimorbid patients in family medicine]

Le vieillissement de la population associé à l’augmentation de l’espérance de vie conduit à une explosion du nombre de patients multimorbides. Face à cette multimorbidité (MM) dont la prise en charge et les soins sont souvent chronophages, les médecins de famille (MF) et les patients doivent établir des priorités et décider, entre autres, quelle pathologie mettre en premier plan ou à quel traitement il est possible de renoncer. Leur façon de faire reste inconnue. Nous avons conduit une étude qualitative par entretiens individuels pour explorer les stratégies de priorisation utilisées par cinq MF et cinq patients avec MM en Suisse romande. Notre étude a permis de mettre en évidence quelques stratégies de priorisation, de souligner l’importance de la discussion MF-patient et de la prise de décision partagée (shared decision-making) dans ce processus. [The aging of the population together with the increasing life expectancy lead to a drastic increase in the number of patients with multi-morbidity (MM). Caring for these patients is time-consuming and the treatment of multiple conditions might be burdensome. Therefore both general practitioner (GP) and patients need to establish priorities and, among others, to decide which pathology to treat primarily or to which treatment to renounce. How they do this is currently unknown. This qualitative study based on individual interviews reports prioritization's strategies used by five GPs and five of their patients in Switzerland. Our study underlined the importance of the discussion between GPs and their patients and the use of the shared decision-making in the prioritization process.

The clinical burden of newly diagnosed Heart failure among patients with Reduced, mildly Reduced, and preserved ejection fraction

Background: Contemporary analyses of the distribution of heart failure (HF) patients by groups of ejection fraction are not available or are limited to hospitalized patients. Our objective was to quantify the per-person and system level clinical burden of a broad population of HF patients. Methods: We studied 16,516 patients with a new HF diagnosis recorded in the electronic medical record of a U.S. integrated delivery system between 2005 and 2017. We used the diagnosis date as the index date and the nearest echocardiogram result to classify patients as HFrEF (n = 2,430), HFmrEF (n = 1,646), HFpEF (n = 12,440) and followed them through 2019 for major clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations [HHF], all-cause hospitalizations, incident chronic kidney disease [CKD], progression of eGFR category, progression of CKD, incident type 2 diabetes [T2D], and progression to insulin use). We compared age and sex adjusted incidence rates and rate ratios of the outcomes between the HF types. Results: Incidence rates for most outcomes were significantly higher among patients with HFrEF compared with HFpEF. HHF was 59 % greater, mortality 31 % greater, and CKD incidence 55 % greater, (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). However, the larger size of the HFpEF group generated 4.7–6.7 times as many total outcomes. Conclusions: Regardless of subtype, the presence of HF was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Incidence rates were higher for HFrEF than HFpEF, but as the latter represented 75% of the study population, HFpEF caused a greater overall burden on the health care system, reflecting the high unmet need of target therapies for HFpEF