Social disparities in the prevalence of multimorbidity:A register-based population study

Abstract Background Prevalences of multimorbidity vary between European studies and several methods and definitions are used. In this study we examine the prevalence of multimorbidity in relation to age, gender and educational attainment and the association between physical and mental health conditions and educational attainment in a Danish population. Methods A cross-sectional design was used to study the prevalence of multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic conditions, and of comorbid physical and mental health conditions across age groups and educational attainment levels among 1,397,173 individuals aged 16 years and older who lived in the Capital Region of Denmark on January 1st, 2012. After calculating prevalence, odds ratios for multimorbidity and mental health conditions were derived from logistic regression on gender, age, age squared, education and number of physical conditions (only for odds ratios for mental health conditions). Odds ratios for having multimorbidity and mental health conditions for each variable were adjusted for all other variables. Results Multimorbidity prevalence was 21.6%. Half of the population aged 65 and above had multimorbidity, and prevalence was inversely related to educational attainment: 26.9% (95% CI, 26.8–26.9) among those with lower secondary education versus 13.5% (95% CI, 13.5–13.6) among people with postgraduate education. Adjusted odds ratios for multimorbidity were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49–0.51) for people with postgraduate education, compared to people with lower secondary education. Among all population members, 4.9% (95% CI, 4.9–4.9) had both a physical and a mental health condition, a proportion that increased to 22.6% of people with multimorbidity. Physical and mental health comorbidity was more prevalent in women (6.33%; 95% CI, 6.3–6.4) than men (3.34%; 95% CI, 3.3–3.4) and approximately 50 times more prevalent among older persons than younger ones. Physical and mental health comorbidity was also twice as prevalent among people with lower secondary education than among those with postgraduate education. The presence of a mental health condition was strongly associated with the number of physical conditions; those with five or more physical conditions had an adjusted odds ratio for a mental health condition of 3.93 (95% CI, 3.8–4.1), compared to those with no physical conditions. Conclusion Multimorbidity prevalence and patterns in the Danish population are comparable to those of other European populations. The high prevalence of mental and physical health conditions highlights the need to ensure that healthcare systems deliver care that takes physical and mental comorbidity into account. Further, the higher prevalence of multimorbidity among persons with low educational attainment emphasizes the importance of having a health care system providing care that is beneficial to all regardless of socioeconomic status

Multimorbidity, healthcare utilization and socioeconomic status:A register-based study in Denmark

BackgroundPeople with multimorbidity have reduced functional capacity, lower quality of life, higher mortality rates and use healthcare resources more intensively than healthy people or those with a single chronic condition. Multimorbidity was defined as the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions in the same person. The aim of this study was to explore associations between multimorbidity and use of healthcare services and the impact of socioeconomic status on utilization of hospitalizations and bed days.MethodsThe study population included all individuals aged 16 years and older who lived in the Capital Region of Denmark on January 1st, 2012. Data on chronic conditions, use of healthcare services and demographics were obtained from Danish national administrative and health registries. Zero-inflated models were used to calculate anticipated annual use of hospitalizations and bed days.FindingsThe study population comprised 1,397,173 individuals; the prevalence of multimorbidity was 22%. Prevalence was inversely related to educational attainment. For people with multimorbidity, utilization of hospitalizations and bed days increased approximately linearly with the number of chronic conditions. However, a steep increase in utilization of bed days was observed between five and six or more chronic conditions. An educational gradient in hospitalization rates and use of bed days was observed regardless of the number of chronic conditions. Educational attainment was strongly associated with healthcare utilization.ConclusionMultimorbidity was associated with a significant increase in utilization of all healthcare services in Denmark. In addition, a socioeconomic gradient was observed in utilization of hospitalizations and bed days

Something is Amiss in Denmark: A Comparison of Preventable Hospitalisations and Readmissions for Chronic Medical Conditions in the Danish Healthcare System and Kaiser Permanente

Background: As many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas for improvement. Prior work indicates that chronic care coordination is poor in the DHS, especially in comparison with care in Kaiser Permanente (KP), an integrated delivery system based in the United States. We investigated population rates of hospitalisation and readmission rates for ambulatory care sensitive, chronic medical conditions in the two systems. Methods: Using a historical cohort study design, age and gender adjusted population rates of hospitalisations for angina, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension, plus rates of 30-day readmission and mortality were investigated for all individuals aged 65+ in the DHS and KP. Results: DHS had substantially higher rates of hospitalisations, readmissions, and mean lengths of stay per hospitalisation, than KP had. For example, the adjusted angina hospitalisation rates in 2007 for the DHS and KP respectively were 1.01/100 persons (95%CI: 0.98-1.03) vs. 0.11/100 persons (95%CI: 0.10-0.13/100 persons); 21.6% vs. 9.9% readmission within 30 days (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.84-3.47); and mean length of stay was 2.52 vs. 1.80 hospital days. Mortality up through 30 days post-discharge was not consistently different in the two systems. Conclusions: There are substantial differences between the DHS and KP in the rates of preventable hospitalisations and subsequent readmissions associated with chronic conditions, which suggest much opportunity for improvement within the Danish healthcare system. Reductions in hospitalisations also could improve patient welfare and free considerable resources for use towards preventing disease exacerbations. These conclusions may also apply for similar public systems such as the US Medicare system, the NHS and other systems striving to improve the integration of care for persons with chronic conditions

A retrospective analysis of health systems in Denmark and Kaiser Permanente

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP$1,951 (KP) and PPP$1,845 (DHS).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Compared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.</p

Self-Management Support to People with Type 2 Diabetes - A comparative study of Kaiser Permanente and the Danish Healthcare System

BACKGROUND: Self-management support is considered to be an essential part of diabetes care. However, the implementation of self-management support within healthcare settings has appeared to be challenging and there is increased interest in “real world” best practice examples to guide policy efforts. In order to explore how different approaches to diabetes care and differences in management structure influence the provision of SMS we selected two healthcare systems that have shown to be comparable in terms of budget, benefits and entitlements. We compared the extent of SMS provided and the self-management behaviors of people living with diabetes in Kaiser Permanente (KP) and the Danish Healthcare System (DHS). METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from a random sample of 2,536 individuals with DM from KP and the DHS in 2006–2007 to compare the level of SMS provided in the two systems and identify disparities associated with educational attainment. The response rates were 75 % in the DHS and 56 % in KP. After adjusting for gender, age, educational level, and HbA1c level, multiple linear regression analyses determined the level of SMS provided and identified disparities associated with educational attainment. RESULTS: Receipt of SMS varied substantially between the two systems. More people with diabetes in KP reported receiving all types of SMS and use of SMS tools compared to the DHS (p < .0001). Less than half of all respondents reported taking diabetes medication as prescribed and following national guidelines for exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Despite better SMS support in KP compared to the DHS, self-management remains an under-supported area of care for people receiving care for diabetes in the two health systems. Our study thereby suggests opportunity for improvements especially within the Danish healthcare system and systems adopting similar SMS support strategies

Quality of care for people with multimorbidity:a case series

Abstract Background Multimorbidity is becoming increasingly prevalent and presents challenges for healthcare providers and systems. Studies examining the relationship between multimorbidity and quality of care report mixed findings. The purpose of this study was to investigate quality of care for people with multimorbidity in the publicly funded healthcare system in Denmark. Methods To investigate the quality of care for people with multimorbidity different groups of clinicians from the hospital, general practice and the municipality reviewed records from 23 persons with multimorbidity and discussed them in three focus groups. Before each focus group, clinicians were asked to review patients’ medical records and assess their care by responding to a questionnaire. Medical records from 2013 from hospitals, general practice, and health centers in the local municipality were collected and linked for the 23 patients. Further, two clinical pharmacologists reviewed the appropriateness of medications listed in patient records. Results The review of the patients’ records conducted by three groups of clinicians revealed that around half of the patients received adequate care for the single condition which prompted the episode of care such as a hospitalization, a visit to an outpatient clinic or the general practitioner. Further, the care provided to approximately two-thirds of the patients did not take comorbidities into account and insufficiently addressed more diffuse symptoms or problems. The review of the medication lists revealed that the majority of the medication lists contained inappropriate medications and that there were incongruity in medication listed in the primary and secondary care sector. Several barriers for providing high quality care were identified. These included relative short consultation times in general practice and outpatient clinics, lack of care coordinators, and lack of shared IT-system proving an overview of the treatment. Conclusions Our findings reveal quality of care deficiencies for people with multimorbidity. Suggestions for care improvement for people with multimorbidity includes formally assigned responsibility for care coordination, a change in the financial incentive structure towards a system rewarding high quality care and care focusing on prevention of disease exacerbation, as well as implementing shared medical record systems

Is the Kaiser Permanente model superior in terms of clinical integration?: a comparative study of Kaiser Permanente, Northern California and the Danish healthcare system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Integration of medical care across clinicians and settings could enhance the quality of care for patients. To date, there is limited data on the levels of integration in practice. Our objective was to compare primary care clinicians' perceptions of clinical integration and three sub-aspects in two healthcare systems: Kaiser Permanente, Northern California (KPNC) and the Danish healthcare system (DHS). Further, we examined the associations between specific organizational factors and clinical integration within each system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Comparable questionnaires were sent to a random sample of primary care clinicians in KPNC (n = 1103) and general practitioners in DHS (n = 700). Data were analysed using multiple logistic regression models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>More clinicians in KPNC perceived to be part of a clinical integrated environment than did general practitioners in the DHS (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 2.28, 4.12). Further, more KPNC clinicians reported timeliness of information transfer (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.13), agreement on roles and responsibilities (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.47) and established coordination mechanisms in place to ensure effective handoffs (OR = 6.80, 95% CI: 4.60, 10.06). None of the considered organizational factors in the sub-country analysis explained a substantial proportion of the variation in clinical integration.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>More primary care clinicians in KPNC reported clinical integration than did general practitioners in the DHS. Focused measures of clinical integration are needed to develop the field of clinical integration and to create the scientific foundation to guide managers searching for evidence based approaches.</p