The foundations framework for developing and reporting new models of care for multimorbidity

PURPOSE Multimorbidity challenges health systems globally. New models of care are urgently needed to better manage patients with multimorbidity; however, there is no agreed framework for designing and reporting models of care for multimorbidity and their evaluation. METHODS Based on findings from a literature search to identify models of care for multimorbidity, we developed a framework to describe these models. We illustrate the application of the framework by identifying the focus and gaps in current models of care, and by describing the evolution of models over time. RESULTS Our framework describes each model in terms of its theoretical basis and target population (the foundations of the model) and of the elements of care implemented to deliver the model. We categorized elements of care into 3 types: (1) clinical focus, (2) organization of care, (3) support for model delivery. Application of the framework identified a limited use of theory in model design and a strong focus on some patient groups (elderly, high users) more than others (younger patients, deprived populations). We found changes in elements with time, with a decrease in models implementing home care and an increase in models offering extended appointments. CONCLUSIONS By encouraging greater clarity about the underpinning theory and target population, and by categorizing the wide range of potentially important elements of an intervention to improve care for patients with multimorbidity, the framework may be useful in designing and reporting models of care and help advance the currently limited evidence base

Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care:a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. Design Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. Setting General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. Participants 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. Intervention The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost-consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. Results Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (-0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference 126 pound (-739 pound to 991)) pound in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 18 pound 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 pound 000 per QALY (55.8% at 30 pound 000 per QALY). Conclusions The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal

Can implementation failure or intervention failure explain the result of the 3D multimorbidity trial in general practice:mixed-methods process evaluation

Objectives During a cluster randomised trial, (the 3D study) of an intervention enacting recommended care for people with multimorbidity, including continuity of care and comprehensive biennial reviews, we examined implementation fidelity to interpret the trial outcome and inform future implementation decisions. Design Mixed-methods process evaluation using cross-trial data and a sample of practices, clinicians, administrators and patients. Interviews, focus groups and review observations were analysed thematically and integrated with quantitative data about implementation. Analysis was blind to trial outcomes and examined context, intervention adoption, reach and maintenance, and delivery of reviews to patients. Setting Thirty-three UK general practices in three areas. Participants The trial included 1546 people with multimorbidity. 11 general practitioners, 14 nurses, 7 administrators and 38 patients from 9 of 16 intervention practices were sampled for an interview. Results Staff loss, practice size and different administrative strategies influenced implementation fidelity. Practices with whole administrative team involvement and good alignment between the intervention and usual care generally implemented better. Fewer reviews than intended were delivered (49% of patients receiving both intended reviews, 30% partially reviewed). In completed reviews >90% of intended components were delivered, but review observations and interviews with patients and clinicians found variation in style of component delivery, from ‘tick-box’ to patient-centred approaches. Implementation barriers included inadequate skills training to implement patient-centred care planning, but patients reported increased patient-centredness due to comprehensive reviews, extra time and being asked about their health concerns. Conclusions Implementation failure contributed to lack of impact of the 3D intervention on the trial primary outcome (quality of life), but so did intervention failure since modifiable elements of intervention design were partially responsible. When a decisive distinction between implementation failure and intervention failure cannot be made, identifying potentially modifiable reasons for suboptimal implementation is important to enhance potential for impact and effectiveness of a redesigned intervention. Trial registration number ISRCTN0618095

Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model:a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach

Background: The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. Methods: We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. Findings: Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI −0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. Funding: National Institute for Health Research

A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice:the 3D RCT

Background: People with multimorbidity experience impaired quality of life, poor health and a burden from treatment. Their care is often disease-focused rather than patient-centred and tailored to their individual needs. Objective: To implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice. Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel process and economic evaluations. Practices were centrally randomised by a statistician blind to practice identifiers, using a computer-generated algorithm. Setting: Thirty-three general practices in three areas of England and Scotland. Participants: Practices had at least 4500 patients and two general practitioners (GPs) and used the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) computer system. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with three or more long-term conditions. Interventions: The 3D (Dimensions of health, Depression and Drugs) intervention was designed to offer patients continuity of care with a named GP, replacing separate reviews of each long-term condition with comprehensive reviews every 6 months. These focused on individualising care to address patients’ main problems, attention to quality of life, depression and polypharmacy and on disease control and agreeing treatment plans. Control practices provided usual care. Outcome measures: Primary outcome – health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) after 15 months. Secondary outcomes – measures of illness burden, treatment burden and patient-centred care. We assessed cost-effectiveness from a NHS and a social care perspective. Results: Thirty-three practices (1546 patients) were randomised from May to December 2015 [16 practices (797 patients) to the 3D intervention, 17 practices (749 patients) to usual care]. All participants were included in the primary outcome analysis by imputing missing data. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in health-related quality of life {adjusted difference in means 0.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.02 to 0.02]; p = 0.93}, illness burden or treatment burden. However, patients reported significant benefits from the 3D intervention in all measures of patient-centred care. Qualitative data suggested that both patients and staff welcomed having more time, continuity of care and the patient-centred approach. The economic analysis found no meaningful differences between the intervention and usual care in either quality-adjusted life-years [(QALYs) adjusted mean QALY difference 0.007, 95% CI –0.009 to 0.023] or costs (adjusted mean difference £126, 95% CI –£739 to £991), with wide uncertainty around point estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be either more or less cost-effective than usual care. Seventy-eight patients died (46 in the intervention arm and 32 in the usual-care arm), with no evidence of difference between trial arms; no deaths appeared to be associated with the intervention. Limitations: In this pragmatic trial, the implementation of the intervention was incomplete: 49% of patients received two 3D reviews over 15 months, whereas 75% received at least one review. Conclusions: The 3D approach reflected international consensus about how to improve care for multimorbidity. Although it achieved the aim of providing more patient-centred care, this was not associated with benefits in quality of life, illness burden or treatment burden. The intervention was no more or less cost-effective than usual care. Modifications to the 3D approach might improve its effectiveness. Evaluation is needed based on whole-system change over a longer period of time. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06180958. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information