Simplifying care for complex patients

Primary care detection of cognitive impairment leveraging health and consumer technologies in underserved US communities: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the MyCog paradigm

INTRODUCTION

Early identification of cognitive impairment (CI), including Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), is a top public health priority. Yet, CI/ADRD is often undetected and underdiagnosed within primary care settings, and in health disparate populations. The MyCog paradigm is an iPad-based, self-administered, validated cognitive assessment based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery and coupled with clinician decision-support tools that is specifically tailored for CI/ADRD detection within diverse, primary care settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a two-arm, primary care practice-randomised (N=24 practices; 45 257 active patients at the proposed practices), pragmatic trial among geographically diverse Oak Street Health sites to test the effectiveness of the MyCog paradigm to improve early detection CI/ADRD among low socioeconomic, black and Hispanic older adults compared with usual care. Participating practices randomised to the intervention arm will impart the MyCog paradigm as a new standard of care over a 3-year implementation period; as the cognitive component for Annual Wellness Visits and for any patient/informant-reported or healthcare provider-suspected cognitive concern. Rates of detected (cognitive test suggesting impairment) and/or diagnosed (relevant International Classification of Diseases-9/10 [ICD-9/10] code) cognitive deficits, impairments or dementias including ADRD will be our primary outcome of study compared between arms. Secondary outcomes will include ADRD severity (ie, mild or later stage), rates of cognitive-related referrals and rates of family member or caregiver involvement in ADRD care planning. We will use generalised linear mixed models to account for clustered study design. Secondary models will adjust for subject, clinic or visit-specific characteristics. We will use mixed-methods approaches to examine fidelity and cost-effectiveness of the MyCog paradigm.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Institutional Review Board at Advarra has approved the study protocol (Pro00064339). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05607732.

Behavioural indicators of compassionate nursing care of individuals with complex needs: A naturalistic inquiry

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore behavioural indicators of compassionate nursing care from the perspectives of individuals with multimorbidities and complex needs.

BACKGROUND

Complex patients are individuals with multimorbidity and/or mental health concerns, andoften with medication and drug-related problems requiring ongoing person-centered care, mental health interventions, and family and community resources. They are frequent consumers of health-care services and it is documented that these patients experience discrimination and substandard care. Compassionate care can improve patient care experiences and health outcomes. However, missing is the guidance on how to provide compassionate care for this population from the perspectives of complex patients.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive approach was conducted in eastern Canada from December 2020-April 2021. The COREQ guidelines were followed for reporting.

METHODS

Data from in-person and virtual semi-structured interviews with 23 individuals having experiences as complex patients were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Among them 19 were homeless and lived in a shelter.

FINDINGS

Six indicators of compassionate nursing care were generated: sensitivity, awareness, a non-judgmental approach, a positive demeanour, empathic understanding, and altruism.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals perceived that nurses who acknowledge personal biases are better at providing compassionate care by manifesting compassion through their genuine and selfless interest in the complicated health problems and underlying socio-cultural determinants of each patient. Kindness, positivity, and a respectful nursing approach elicit openness and the sharing of heartfelt concerns.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Comprehensive health assessment, dedicated efforts to know the patient as a human being, and listening to the patient's preferences can improve health outcomes among individuals with complex needs. Healthcare administrators can effect the change by supporting nurses to address complex health and social care needs with compassion.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and healthcare professionals helped in data collection at the community care centre.

Challenges and strategies in patients' health priorities-aligned decision-making for older adults with multiple chronic conditions

OBJECTIVES

While patients' health priorities should inform healthcare, strategies for doing so are lacking for patients with multiple conditions. We describe challenges to, and strategies that support, patients' priorities-aligned decision-making.

DESIGN

Participant observation qualitative study.

SETTING

Primary care and cardiology practices in Connecticut.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten primary care clinicians, five cardiologists, and the Patient Priorities implementation team (four geriatricians, physician expert in clinician training, behavioral medicine expert). The patients discussed were ≥ 66 years with >3 chronic conditions and ≥10 medications or saw ≥ two specialists.

EXPOSURE

Following initial training and experience in providing Patient Priorities Care, the clinicians and Patient Priorities implementation team participated in 21 case-based, group discussions (10 face-to-face;11 telephonic). Using emergent learning (i.e. learning which arises from interactions among the participants), participants discussed challenges, posed solutions, and worked together to determine how to align care options with the health priorities of 35 patients participating in the Patient Priorities Care pilot.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Challenges to, and strategies for, aligning decision-making with patient's health priorities.

RESULTS

Categories of challenges discussed among participants included uncertainty, complexity, and multiplicity of problems and treatments; difficulty switching to patients' priorities as the focus of decision-making; and differing perspectives between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians. Strategies identified to support patient priorities-aligned decision-making included starting with one thing that matters most to each patient; conducting serial trials of starting, stopping, or continuing interventions; focusing on function (i.e. achieving patient's desired activities) rather than eliminating symptoms; basing communications, decision-making, and effectiveness on patients' priorities not solely on diseases; and negotiating shared decisions when there are differences in perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The discrete set of challenges encountered and the implementable strategies identified suggest that patient priorities-aligned decision-making in the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions is feasible, albeit complicated. Findings require replication in additional settings and determination of their effect on patient outcomes.

Underlying mechanisms of complex interventions addressing the care of older adults with multimorbidity: a realist review

OBJECTIVES

To understand how and why effective multi-chronic disease management interventions influence health outcomes in older adults 65 years of age or older.

DESIGN

A realist review.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including Medline and Embase (inception to December 2017); and the grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We considered any studies (ie, experimental quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative and mixed-methods studies) as long as they provided data to explain our programme theories and effectiveness review (published elsewhere) findings. The population of interest was older adults (age ≥65 years) with two or more chronic conditions.

ANALYSIS

We used the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality and publication criteria for our synthesis aimed at refining our programme theories such that they contained multiple context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the ways different mechanisms fire to generate outcomes. We created a 3-step synthesis process grounded in meta-ethnography to separate units of data from articles, and to derive explanatory statements across them.

RESULTS

106 articles contributed to the analysis. We refined our programme theories to explain multimorbidity management in older adults: (1) care coordination interventions with the best potential for impact are team-based strategies, disease management programmes and case management; (2) optimised disease prioritisation involves ensuring that clinician work with patients to identify what symptoms are problematic and why, and to explore options that are acceptable to both clinicians and patients and (3) optimised patient self-management is dependent on patients' capacity for selfcare and to what extent, and establishing what patients need to enable selfcare.

CONCLUSIONS

To optimise care, both clinical management and patient self-management need to be considered from multiple perspectives (patient, provider and system). To mitigate the complexities of multimorbidity management, patients focus on reducing symptoms and preserving quality of life while providers focus on the condition that most threaten morbidity and mortality.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014014489.

Perspectives of Patients in Identifying Their Values-Based Health Priorities

OBJECTIVES

Patient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using thematic analysis.

SETTING

In-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process.

MEASUREMENTS

Open-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement.

RESULTS

Patient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.

The Politics of Primary Care Expansion: Lessons From Cancer Survivorship and Substance Abuse

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study is to understand the perspectives of primary care innovators treating patient populations not traditionally considered to be within the purview of primary care. Data were obtained from the 2015 Working Conference for PCMH (Patient-Centered Medical Home) Innovation funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The conference convened representatives from 10 innovative primary care practices and content experts to discuss experiences with integrating care for two nontraditional populations: patients with substance abuse issues and cancer survivors. Transcripts of the conference, one-on-one interviews, and written summaries of practice innovations were coded in NVivo (QSR International) and analyzed by means of an immersion/crystallization approach to identifying thematic patterns. Our study findings suggest that the politics surrounding entrenched professional identities contributed to barriers faced by conference participants in their efforts to provide innovative care for these nontraditional populations. Specifically, obstacles surfaced in relation to sharing patients across disciplinary boundaries, which resulted in issues of possessiveness, a questioning of provider qualifications, and a lack of interprofessional trust. Though support is increasing for primary care expansion and care integration, policy change may precede the identity transformations necessary for medical practitioners to embrace new primary care-centered models. For this reason, it is important that the formation and entrenchment of professional identities be critically considered as part of future efforts to transform primary care practice.

Protocol for a program of research from the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit: Promoting optimal aging at home for older adults with multimorbidity

Background:

The goal of the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit (ACHRU) is to promote optimal aging at home for older adults with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) and to support their family/friend caregivers. This protocol paper reports the rationale and plan for this patient-oriented, cross-jurisdictional research program.

Objectives:

The objectives of the ACHRU research program are (i) to codesign integrated and person-centered interventions with older adults, family/friend caregivers, and providers; (ii) to examine the feasibility of newly designed interventions; (iii) to determine the intervention effectiveness on Triple Aim outcomes: health, patient/caregiver experience, and cost; (iv) to examine intervention context and implementation barriers and facilitators; (v) to use diverse integrated knowledge translation (IKT) strategies to engage knowledge users to support scalability and sustainability of effective interventions; and (vi) to build patient-oriented research capacity.

Design:

The research program was informed by the Knowledge-to-Action Framework and the Complexity Model. Six individual studies were conceptualized as integrated pieces of work. The results of the three initial descriptive studies will inform and be followed by three pragmatic randomized controlled trials. IKT and capacity building activities will be embedded in all six studies and tailored to the unique focus of each study.

Conclusions:

This research program will inform the development of effective and scalable person-centered interventions that are sustainable through interagency and intersectoral partnerships with community-based agencies, policy makers, and other health and social service agencies. Implementation of these interventions has the potential to transform health-care services and systems and improve the quality of life for older adults with multimorbidity and their caregivers.

Trial registration:

NCT02428387 (study 4), NCT02158741 (study 5), and NCT02209285 (study 6).

Role of the family doctor in the management of adults with obesity: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Obesity management is an important issue for the international primary care community. This scoping review examines the literature describing the role of the family doctor in managing adults with obesity. The methods were prospectively published and followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

SETTING

Primary care. Adult patients.

INCLUDED PAPERS

Peer-reviewed and grey literature with the keywords obesity, primary care and family doctors. All literature published up to September 2015. 3294 non-duplicate papers were identified and 225 articles included after full-text review.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were extracted on the family doctors' involvement in different aspects of management, and whether whole person and person-centred care were explicitly mentioned.

RESULTS

110 papers described interventions in primary care and family doctors were always involved in diagnosing obesity and often in recruitment of participants. A clear description of the provider involved in an intervention was often lacking. It was difficult to determine if interventions took account of whole person and person-centredness. Most opinion papers and clinical overviews described an extensive role for the family doctor in management; in contrast, research on current practices depicted obesity as undermanaged by family doctors. International guidelines varied in their description of the role of the family doctor with a more extensive role suggested by guidelines from family medicine organisations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disconnect between how family doctors are involved in primary care interventions, the message in clinical overviews and opinion papers, and observed current practice of family doctors. The role of family doctors in international guidelines for obesity may reflect the strength of primary care in the originating health system. Reporting of primary care interventions could be improved by enhanced descriptions of the providers involved and explanation of how the pillars of primary care are used in intervention development.

Quality of life and burden of morbidity in primary care users with multimorbidity

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life, number of diseases and burden of morbidity of multimorbid primary care users and whether a simple disease count or a multimorbidity burden score is more predictive of quality of life.

Patients and methods

Primary care patients with at least 1 of 11 specified chronic conditions were invited to participate in a postal survey. Participants completed the Disease Burden Impact Scale (DBIS) questionnaire, the five dimension-five level Euro-Qol (EQ-5D-5L) and standard demographics questions. The DBIS asks participants to self-report chronic conditions and to rate the impact of each condition. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to determine quality of life, count of diseases and burden of morbidity. Multiple linear regression analyses determined whether disease count or the DBIS, adjusted for demographics, was more predictive of the EQ-5D-5L scores.

Results

Thirty-one percent (n=917) responded, from which 69 were excluded as they reported no or only one condition, leaving 848 (92%) in the analysis. Slightly more women (50.9%) participated; the mean age was 67.0 (SD 13.9) and the mean number of conditions was 6.5 (SD 3.49). The mean scores were: DBIS 15.5 (SD 12.00; score range 0–140, with higher scores indicating higher multimorbidity burden), EQ-5D-5L score 0.69 (SD 0.28; score range −0.28 [a state worse than death] to 1 [best possible health state]) and EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) 65.44 (SD 23.66; score range 0–100 with higher scores meaning better health). The model using the DBIS score was more predictive of the EQ-5D-5L score and EQ-VAS than the model using the disease count (R²_adj=0.53 using DBIS and R²_adj=0.42 using disease count for EQ-5D-5L score, and R²_adj=0.44 using DBIS versus R²_adj=0.34 using disease count for EQ-VAS). All models were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The DBIS is a useful measure for assessing multimorbidity from the perspective of primary care users in particular, as it is more predictive of health outcomes than a simple count of conditions.

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 encouragin 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.

Perspectives of Patients, Clinicians, and Health System Leaders on Changes Needed to Improve the Health Care and Outcomes of Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain perspectives of multiple stakeholders on contributors to inappropriate care for older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

METHOD

Perspectives of 36 purposively sampled patients, clinicians, health systems, and payers were elicited. Data analysis followed a constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Structural factors triggering burden and fragmentation include disease-based quality metrics and need to interact with multiple clinicians. The key cultural barrier identified is the assumption that "physicians know best." Inappropriate decision making may result from inattention to trade-offs and adherence to multiple disease guidelines. Stakeholders recommended changes in culture, structure, and decision making. Care options and quality metrics should reflect a focus on patients' priorities. Clinician-patient partnerships should reflect patients knowing their health goals and clinicians knowing how to achieve them. Access to specialty expertise should not require visits.

DISCUSSION

Stakeholders' recommendations suggest health care redesigns that incorporate patients' health priorities into care decisions and realign relationships across patients and clinicians.

Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patients with cancer with multiple chronic conditions pose a unique challenge to how primary care and specialty care teams provide well-coordinated, patient-centered care. Effectiveness of these care teams in providing optimal health care depends on the extent to which they coordinate their goals and knowledge as components of a multiteam system (MTS). This article outlines challenges of care coordination in the context of an MTS, illustrated through the care experience of "Mr Fuentes," a patient in the Dallas County integrated safety-net system, Parkland. As a continuing patient with chronic illnesses, the patient being discussed is managed through one of the Parkland community-oriented primary care clinics. However, a cancer diagnosis triggered an additional need for augmented coordination between his different provider teams. Further research and practice should investigate the relationships of MTS coordination for shared care management, transfer to and from specialty care, treatment compliance, barriers to care, and health outcomes of chronic comorbid conditions, as well as cancer control and surveillance.

Personalised Medicine and Scarce Resources: A Discussion of Ethical Chances and Challenges from the Perspective of the Capability Approach

In the aftermath of the economic crisis that started in 2008, resources have become scarcer than ever in some countries, also in health care. Priority setting and rationalisation of existing resources also affect pharmaceutical innovations, including those that would contribute to what is called personalised medicine. In this paper, we will highlight the ethical issues surrounding rationalisation and its impact on personalised medicine through the lens of the capability approach. Thereby, challenges to and opportunities for personalised medicine will be examined, assessing how they affect patients' 'real options' to access innovative therapies. In our focus on the 'first challenge: citizens and patients' of the so-called Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, the strength of the capability approach becomes particularly apparent in identifying what different values are at stake in this context.

Patient Priority-Directed Decision Making and Care for Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions

Older adults with multiple conditions receive care that is often fragmented, burdensome, and of unclear benefit. An advisory group of patients, caregivers, clinicians, health system engineers, health care system leaders, payers, and others identified three modifiable contributors to this fragmented, burdensome care: decision making and care focused on diseases, not patients; inadequate delineation of roles and responsibilities and accountability among clinicians; and lack of attention to what matters to patients and caregivers (ie, their health outcome goals and care preferences). The advisory group identified patient priority-directed care as a feasible, sustainable approach to addressing these modifiable factors.

Aging and Multimorbidity: New Tasks, Priorities, and Frontiers for Integrated Gerontological and Clinical Research

Aging is characterized by rising susceptibility to development of multiple chronic diseases and, therefore, represents the major risk factor for multimorbidity. From a gerontological perspective, the progressive accumulation of multiple diseases, which significantly accelerates at older ages, is a milestone for progressive loss of resilience and age-related multisystem homeostatic dysregulation. Because it is most likely that the same mechanisms that drive aging also drive multiple age-related chronic diseases, addressing those mechanisms may reduce the development of multimorbidity. According to this vision, studying multimorbidity may help to understand the biology of aging and, at the same time, understanding the underpinnings of aging may help to develop strategies to prevent or delay the burden of multimorbidity. As a consequence, we believe that it is time to build connections and dialogue between the clinical experience of general practitioners and geriatricians and the scientists who study aging, so as to stimulate innovative research projects to improve the management and the treatment of older patients with multiple morbidities.

People with multimorbidity: forgotten outsiders or dynamic self-managers?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the discursive construction of multimorbidity. The study illustrates how the social reality of multimorbidity and the agency of patients are discursively constructed in scientific articles addressing care for people with multiple chronic conditions.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The study is based on the postmodern assumptions about the power of talk and language in the construction of reality. Totally 20, scientific articles were analysed by critically oriented discourse analysis. The interpretations of the findings draw on the agency theories and principals of critical management studies.

FINDINGS

Four discourses were identified: medical, technical, collaborative and individual. The individual discourse challenges patients to become self-managers of their health. It may, however, go too far in the pursuit of patients' active agency. The potential restrictions and consequences of a "business-like" orientation must be paid careful attention when dealing with patients with multimorbidity.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The data consisted solely of scientific texts and findings therefore serve as limited illustrations of the discursive construction of multimorbidity. In future, research focusing for example on political documents and practice talk of professionals and patients is needed. Social implications - The findings highlight the power of talk and importance of ethical considerations in the development of care for challenging patient groups.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

By identifying the prevailing discourses the study attempts to cast doubt on the taken-for-granted understandings about the agency of patients with multimorbidity.

Continuity of medication management and continuity of care: Conceptual and operational considerations

Objective:

Continuity of care is considered foundational to high-quality care. Traditional continuity of care constructs may adequately characterize care quality in general populations, but may merit reconceptualization for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Specifically, interactions between multiple chronic condition patients and providers involve complex medication management; therefore care continuity measurement may be more relevant if focused on the provider subset who prescribes essential medications for chronic conditions—a construct we call continuity of medication management. Our objective was to explore conceptual distinctions between continuity of medication management and continuity of care, survey existing evidence in this area, and discuss implications of our findings for future research and intervention development.

Methods:

In this topical review, we discuss conceptual distinctions between continuity of medication management and continuity of care, review the limited continuity of medication management–related empirical evidence, and discuss implications for future research and interventions.

Results:

Continuity of medication management represents a potential conceptual and measurement advance by reflecting interpersonal continuity and management continuity, and may provide a means of identifying patients at high-risk of adverse events. Empirical evidence also establishes support for continuity of medication management as a meaningful measure of care continuity. Finally, continuity of medication management may also be a potential target for future intervention to improve care delivery among multiple chronic condition patients.

Conclusion:

If continuity of medication management is validated in diverse populations, correlated with patient outcomes, and responsive to change, then it may be an important target for improving the health and health care of multiple chronic condition patients.

Population targeting and durability of multimorbidity collaborative care management

OBJECTIVES

A patient-centered collaborative care program for depression and uncontrolled diabetes and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) demonstrated improved clinical outcomes relative to usual care. We report clinically stratified analyses of patient outcomes to inform the duration and targeting of care management services for complex patients with multimorbidity.

METHODS

A 12-month randomized controlled trial of a multimorbidity collaborative care program followed patients at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [A1C]), blood pressure (systolic; SBP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and depression (Symptoms Check List-20 score). Depressed patients with less favorable medical control (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score > 10, A1C > 8.0 %, SBP > 140 mm Hg, and LDL cholesterol > 120 mg/dL) were compared with depressed patients with more favorable medical control to describe differential intervention benefits over time.

RESULTS

In contrast to patients with more favorable baseline control, patients with depression and unfavorable control of A1C, SBP, and LDL at baseline showed improved outcomes as early as the 6-month follow-up assessment. Clinical benefits in the intervention group were largely sustained over the 24-month follow-up, except for some deterioration of glycemic control in intervention patients and trends toward improvement among controls over time. Among patients with depression and more favorable medical control at baseline, there were minimal between-group differences in medical disease outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical benefits of a multimorbidity collaborative care management program occurred early, and were only found among patients with poor control of baseline diabetes and CHD risk factors. Targeting may maximize reach and improve affordability of complex care management.

What makes a difference to patients?

To make a difference to patients who increasingly suffer multiple chronic conditions, in a healthcare system that is capable of providing excellent care but is often ineffective and at cross-purposes in its application, means being prepared to take a different approach not only to the delivery of patient care, but to the education of physicians and other healthcare professionals. The model we must now practice and teach is one that emphasizes collaboration and prevention, quality and efficiency. Changes in practice recommended by the 2001 US Institute of Medicine report are being implemented system-wide, following the enactment of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This paper discusses the evolving needs of patients with chronic psychiatric illness, and the psychiatrist's role in a rapidly changing healthcare landscape as a care provider, an interdisciplinary role model, and educator. In an aging population in which multi-morbidity is the norm, episodic, crisis-driven care is prohibitively expensive and does not serve patients well. Yet we still teach that model of care. The medications we prescribe for psychiatric illness, particularly antipsychotics, can cause and/or aggravate some of the commonest chronic medical illnesses; psychiatric educators must address the management of these complications. The management of chronic psychiatric illness in multi-morbid patients demands that we practice and teach a 'whole patient' approach to care, preferably delivered as part of a patient-centred team. The Affordable Care Act has mandated and created opportunities for new models designed to facilitate this, and a paradigm shift is needed in medical education. Clinicians must become adept at identifying underlying and contributing factors and collaborating with the patient, other providers, and the patient's family and significant others. Psychiatric formulation and patient care rely on these principles; we must now teach their application to other specialties, disciplines and professions.

Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB Health, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, and the Cochrane EPOC (effective practice and organisation of care) register (searches updated in April 2011).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. Outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health and psychosocial status, including quality of life outcomes, wellbeing, and measures of disability or functional status. Also included were measures of patient and provider behaviour, including drug adherence, utilisation of health services, acceptability of services, and costs.

DATA SELECTION

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. As meta-analysis of results was not possible owing to heterogeneity in participants and interventions, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies was carried out.

RESULTS

10 studies examining a range of complex interventions totalling 3407 patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Two studies described interventions for patients with specific comorbidities. The remaining eight studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic deprivation was minimal. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple components. In six of the 10 studies the predominant component was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, intervention components were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed, with a trend towards improved prescribing and drug adherence. The results indicated that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors in comorbid conditions or functional difficulties in multimorbidity may be more effective. No economic analyses were included, although the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies could provide potentially important cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited, despite the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on patients and healthcare systems. Interventions to date have had mixed effects, although are likely to be more effective if targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties. A need exists to clearly identify patients with multimorbidity and to develop cost effective and specifically targeted interventions that can improve health outcomes.