Multimorbidity In Primary Care Research Articles

Identifying multi-resolution clusters of diseases in ten million patients with multimorbidity in primary care in England

BackgroundIdentifying clusters of diseases may aid understanding of shared aetiology, management of co-morbidities, and the discovery of new disease associations. Our study aims to identify disease clusters using a large set of long-term conditions and comparing methods that use the co-occurrence of diseases versus methods that use the sequence of disease development in a person over time.MethodsWe use electronic health records from over ten million people with multimorbidity registered to primary care in England. First, we extract data-driven representations of 212 diseases from patient records employing (i) co-occurrence-based methods and (ii) sequence-based natural language processing methods. Second, we apply the graph-based Markov Multiscale Community Detection (MMCD) to identify clusters based on disease similarity at multiple resolutions. We evaluate the representations and clusters using a clinically curated set of 253 known disease association pairs, and qualitatively assess the interpretability of the clusters.ResultsBoth co-occurrence and sequence-based algorithms generate interpretable disease representations, with the best performance from the skip-gram algorithm. MMCD outperforms k-means and hierarchical clustering in explaining known disease associations. We find that diseases display an almost-hierarchical structure across resolutions from closely to more loosely similar co-occurrence patterns and identify interpretable clusters corresponding to both established and novel patterns.ConclusionsOur method provides a tool for clustering diseases at different levels of resolution from co-occurrence patterns in high-dimensional electronic health records, which could be used to facilitate discovery of associations between diseases in the future.

Managing malnutrition and multimorbidity in primary care: dietary approaches to reduce treatment burden.

There are many health and nutrition implications of suffering from multimorbidity, which is a huge challenge facing health and social services. This review focuses on malnutrition, one of the nutritional consequences of multimorbidity. Malnutrition can result from the impact of chronic conditions and their management (polypharmacy) on appetite and nutritional intake, leading to an inability to meet nutritional requirements from food. Malnutrition (undernutrition) is prevalent in primary care and costly, the main cause being disease, accentuated by multiple morbidities. Most of the costs arise from the deleterious effects of malnutrition on individual's function, clinical outcome and recovery leading to a substantially greater burden on treatment and health care resources, costing at least £19.6 billion in England. Routine identification of malnutrition with screening should be part of the management of multimorbidity together with practical, effective ways of treating malnutrition that overcome anorexia where relevant. Nutritional interventions that improve nutritional intake have been shown to significantly reduce mortality in individuals with multi-morbidities. In addition to food-based interventions, a more 'medicalised' dietary approach using liquid oral nutritional supplements (ONS) can be effective. ONS typically have little impact on appetite, effectively improve energy, protein and micronutrient intakes and may significantly improve functional measures. Reduced treatment burden can result from effective nutritional intervention with improved clinical outcomes (fewer infections, wounds), reducing health care use and costs. With the right investment in nutrition and dietetic resources, appropriate nutritional management plans can be put in place to optimally support the multimorbid patient benefitting the individual and the wider society.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

IntroductionPolypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for...

A Technological Tool Aimed at Self-Care in Patients With Multimorbidity: Cross-Sectional Usability Study.

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been positioned as useful tools to facilitate self-care. The interaction between a patient and technology, known as usability, is particularly important for achieving positive health outcomes. Specific characteristics of patients with chronic diseases, including multimorbidity, can affect their interaction with different technologies. Thus, studying the usability of ICTs in the field of multimorbidity has become a key element to ensure their relevant role in promoting self-care. The aim of this study was to analyze the usability of a technological tool dedicated to health and self-care in patients with multimorbidity in primary care. A descriptive observational cross-sectional usability study was performed framed in the clinical trial in the primary care health centers of Madrid Health Service of the TeNDER (Affective Based Integrated Care for Better Quality of Life) project. The TeNDER technological tool integrates sensors for monitoring physical and sleep activity along with a mobile app for consulting the data collected and working with self-management tools. This project included patients over 60 years of age who had one or more chronic diseases, at least one of which was mild-moderate cognitive impairment, Parkinson disease, or cardiovascular disease. From the 250 patients included in the project, 38 agreed to participate in the usability study. The usability variables investigated were effectiveness, which was determined by the degree of completion and the total number of errors per task; efficiency, evaluated as the average time to perform each task; and satisfaction, quantified by the System Usability Scale. Five tasks were evaluated based on real case scenarios. Usability variables were analyzed according to the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients. A logistic regression model was constructed to estimate the factors associated with the type of support provided for task completion. The median age of the 38 participants was 75 (IQR 72.0-79.0) years. There was a slight majority of women (20/38, 52.6%) and the participants had a median of 8 (IQR 7.0-11.0) chronic diseases. Thirty patients completed the usability study, with a usability effectiveness result of 89.3% (134/150 tasks completed). Among the 30 patients, 66.7% (n=20) completed all tasks and 56.7% (17/30) required personalized help on at least one task. In the multivariate analysis, educational level emerged as a facilitating factor for independent task completion (odds ratio 1.79, 95% CI 0.47-6.83). The median time to complete the total tasks was 296 seconds (IQR 210.0-397.0) and the median satisfaction score was 55 (IQR 45.0-62.5) out of 100. Although usability effectiveness was high, the poor efficiency and usability satisfaction scores suggest that there are other factors that may interfere with the results. Multimorbidity was not confirmed to be a key factor affecting the usability of the technological tool. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05681065; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05681065.

Interventions to improve medication adherence in adults with mental-physical multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review.

Medication non-adherence is a notable contributor to healthcare inefficiency, resulting in poor medication management, impaired patient outcomes, and ineffective symptom control. To summarise interventions targeting medication adherence for adults with mental-physical multimorbidity in primary healthcare settings. A systematic review of the literature - published in any language and with any country of origin - was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature - more commonly known as CINAHL - were searched for relevant studies. Data were extracted and synthesised using narrative synthesis. The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy was used to classify intervention types. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool for controlled intervention studies. Eleven studies, representing 2279 patients, were included. All interventions examined were classified into one EPOC domain, namely 'delivery arrangements'. All included studies examined patients who had a physical condition and depression. Seven studies examining interventions focused on coordination of care and management of care processes reported statistically significant improvements in medication adherence that were attributed to the intervention. Four studies considering the use of information and communication technology observed no changes in medication adherence. Interventions that coordinate and manage healthcare processes may help improve patients' adherence to medication regimes in those with mental-physical multimorbidity. However, it is still necessary to better understand how digital health technology can support patients in following their medication regimes. As the growing challenges of treating multimorbidity are faced, everyone involved in health services - from providers to policymakers - must be receptive to a more integrated approach to healthcare delivery.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

Cross-sectional study assessing health outcome priorities of older adults with multimorbidity at a primary care setting in Singapore

ObjectivesManaging older adults with multimorbidity may be challenging due to the conflicting benefits and harms of multiple treatments. Thus, it is important to identify patients’ health outcome priorities to align...

Disease patterns in high-cost individuals with multimorbidity: a retrospective cross-sectional study in primary care.

'High-cost' individuals with multimorbidity account for a disproportionately large share of healthcare costs and are at most risk of poor quality of care and health outcomes. To compare high-cost with lower-cost individuals with multimorbidity and assess whether these populations can be clustered based on similar disease patterns. A cross-sectional study based on 2019/2020 electronic medical records from adults registered to primary care practices (n = 41) in a London borough. Multimorbidity is defined as having ≥2 long-term conditions (LTCs). Primary care costs reflected consultations, which were costed based on provider and consultation types. High cost was defined as the top 20% of individuals in the cost distribution. Descriptive analyses identified combinations of 32 LTCs and their contribution to costs. Latent class analysis explored clustering patterns. Of 386 238 individuals, 101 498 (26%) had multimorbidity. The high-cost group (n = 20 304) incurred 53% of total costs and had 6833 unique disease combinations, about three times the diversity of the lower-cost group (n = 81 194). The trio of anxiety, chronic pain, and depression represented the highest share of costs (5%). High-cost individuals were best grouped into five clusters, but no cluster was dominated by a single LTC combination. In three of five clusters, mental health conditions were the most prevalent. High-cost individuals with multimorbidity have extensive heterogeneity in LTCs, with no single LTC combination dominating their primary care costs. The frequent presence of mental health conditions in this population supports the need to enhance coordination of mental and physical health care to improve outcomes and reduce costs.

The Integration of Clinical Decision Support Systems Into Telemedicine for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care Settings: Scoping Review.

Multimorbidity, the presence of more than one condition in a single individual, is a global health issue in primary care. Multimorbid patients tend to have a poor quality of life and suffer from a complicated care process. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and telemedicine are the common information and communication technologies that have been used to reduce the complexity of patient management. However, each element of telemedicine and CDSSs is often examined separately and with great variability. Telemedicine has been used for simple patient education as well as more complex consultations and case management. For CDSSs, there is variability in data inputs, intended users, and outputs. Thus, there are several gaps in knowledge about how to integrate CDSSs into telemedicine and to what extent these integrated technological interventions can help improve patient outcomes for those with multimorbidity. Our aims were to (1) broadly review system designs for CDSSs that have been integrated into each function of telemedicine for multimorbid patients in primary care, (2) summarize the effectiveness of the interventions, and (3) identify gaps in the literature. An online search for literature was conducted up to November 2021 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Searching from the reference lists was done to find additional potential studies. The eligibility criterion was that the study focused on the use of CDSSs in telemedicine for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. The system design for the CDSS was extracted based on its software and hardware, source of input, input, tasks, output, and users. Each component was grouped by telemedicine functions: telemonitoring, teleconsultation, tele-case management, and tele-education. Seven experimental studies were included in this review: 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 non-RCTs. The interventions were designed to manage patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, polypharmacy, and gestational diabetes mellitus. CDSSs can be used for various telemedicine functions: telemonitoring (eg, feedback), teleconsultation (eg, guideline suggestions, advisory material provisions, and responses to simple queries), tele-case management (eg, sharing information across facilities and teams), and tele-education (eg, patient self-management). However, the structure of CDSSs, such as data input, tasks, output, and intended users or decision-makers, varied. With limited studies examining varying clinical outcomes, there was inconsistent evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. Telemedicine and CDSSs have a role in supporting patients with multimorbidity. CDSSs can likely be integrated into telehealth services to improve the quality and accessibility of care. However, issues surrounding such interventions need to be further explored. These issues include expanding the spectrum of medical conditions examined; examining tasks of CDSSs, particularly for screening and diagnosis of multiple conditions; and exploring the role of the patient as the direct user of the CDSS.

Validation of patient- and GP-reported core sets of quality indicators for older adults with multimorbidity in primary care: results of the cross-sectional observational MULTIqual validation study

BackgroundOlder adults with multimorbidity represent a growing segment of the population. Metrics to assess quality, safety and effectiveness of care can support policy makers and healthcare providers in addressing patient needs. However, there is a lack of valid measures of quality of care for this population. In the MULTIqual project, 24 general practitioner (GP)-reported and 14 patient-reported quality indicators for the healthcare of older adults with multimorbidity were developed in Germany in a systematic approach. This study aimed to select, validate and pilot core sets of these indicators.MethodsIn a cross-sectional observational study, we collected data in general practices (n = 35) and patients aged 65 years and older with three or more chronic conditions (n = 346). One-dimensional core sets for both perspectives were selected by stepwise backward selection based on corrected item-total correlations. We established structural validity, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement for the selected indicators. Multilevel multivariable linear regression models adjusted for random effects at practice level were calculated to examine construct validity.ResultsTwelve GP-reported and seven patient-reported indicators were selected, with item-total correlations ranging from 0.332 to 0.576. Fulfilment rates ranged from 24.6 to 89.0%. Between 0 and 12.7% of the values were missing. Seventeen indicators had agreement rates between patients and professionals of 24.1% to 75.9% and one had 90.7% positive and 5.1% negative agreement. Patients who were born abroad (− 1.04, 95% CI = − 2.00/ − 0.08, p = 0.033) and had higher health-related quality of life (− 1.37, 95% CI = − 2.39/ − 0.36, p = 0.008), fewer contacts with their GP (0.14, 95% CI = 0.04/0.23, p = 0.007) and lower willingness to use their GPs as coordinators of their care (0.13, 95% CI = 0.06/0.20, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower GP-reported healthcare quality scores. Patients who had fewer GP contacts (0.12, 95% CI = 0.04/0.20, p = 0.002) and were less willing to use their GP to coordinate their care (0.16, 95% CI = 0.10/0.21, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower patient-reported healthcare quality scores.ConclusionsThe quality indicator core sets are the first brief measurement tools specifically designed to assess quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. The indicators can facilitate implementation of treatment standards and offer viable alternatives to the current practice of combining disease-related metrics with poor applicability to patients with multimorbidity.

Primary healthcare competencies needed in the management of person-centred integrated care for chronic illness and multimorbidity: Results of a scoping review

BackgroundChronic disease management is important in primary care. Disease management programmes focus primarily on the respective diseases. The occurrence of multimorbidity and social problems is addressed to a limited extent. Person-centred integrated care (PC-IC) is an alternative approach, putting the patient at the centre of care. This asks for additional competencies for healthcare professionals involved in the execution of PC-IC. In this scoping review we researched which competencies are necessary for healthcare professionals working in collaborative teams where the focus lies within the concept of PC-IC. We also explored how these competencies can be acquired.MethodsSix literature databases and grey literature were searched for guidelines and peer-reviewed articles on chronic illness and multimorbidity in primary care. A data synthesis was carried out resulting in an overview of the competencies that healthcare professionals need to deliver PC-IC.ResultsFour guidelines and 21 studies were included and four core competencies could be derived through the synthesis: 1. interprofessional communication, 2, interprofessional collaborative teamwork, 3. leadership and 4. patient-centred communication. Included papers mostly lack a clear description of the competencies in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes which are necessary for a PC-IC approach and on how these competencies can be acquired.ConclusionThis review provides insight on competencies necessary to provide PC-IC within primary care. Research is needed in more depth on core concepts of these competencies which will then benefit educational programmes to ensure that healthcare professionals in primary care are better equipped to deliver PC-IC for patients with chronic illness and multimorbidity.

Telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain and opioid use disorder in safety net primary care

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased use of telehealth for the management of opioid use disorder and chronic non-cancer pain in primary care safety net clinical systems. Significant barriers to telehealth exist, little is known about how these barriers impact urban safety net, primary care providers and their patients. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the benefits and challenges of telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and multi-morbidity in primary care, safety net clinical systems.MethodsWe interviewed patients with chronic non-cancer pain and history of substance use (n = 22) and their primary care clinicians (n = 7) in the San Francisco Bay Area, March-July 2020. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and content analyzed interviews.ResultsCOVID-19 shelter-in-place orders contributed to increases in substance use and uncontrolled pain, and posed challenges for monitoring opioid safety and misuse through telehealth. None of the clinics used video visits due to low digital literacy/access. Benefits of telehealth included decreased patient burden and missed appointments and increased convenience and control of some chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Telehealth challenges included loss of contact, greater miscommunication, and less comprehensive care interactions.ConclusionsThis study is one of the first to examine telehealth use in urban safety net primary care patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use. Decisions to continue or expand telehealth should consider patient burden, communication and technology challenges, pain control, opioid misuse, and medical complexity.

Defining and measuring multimorbidity in primary care in Singapore: Results of an online Delphi study.

Multimorbidity, common in the primary care setting, has diverse implications for both the patient and the healthcare system. However, there is no consensus on the definition of multimorbidity globally. Thus, we aimed to conduct a Delphi study to gain consensus on the definition of multimorbidity, the list and number of chronic conditions used for defining multimorbidity in the Singapore primary care setting. Our Delphi study comprised three rounds of online voting from purposively sampled family physicians in public and private settings. Delphi round 1 included open-ended questions for idea generation. The subsequent two rounds used questions with pre-selected options. Consensus was achieved based on a pre-defined criteria following an iterative process. The response rates for the three rounds were 61.7% (37/60), 86.5% (32/37) and 93.8% (30/32), respectively. Among 40 panellists who responded, 46.0% were 31-40 years old, 64.9% were male and 73.0% were from the public primary healthcare setting. Based on the findings of rounds 1, 2 and 3, consensus on the definition of a chronic condition, multimorbidity and finalised list of chronic conditions were achieved. For a condition to be chronic, it should last for six months or more, be recurrent or persistent, impact patients across multiple domains and require long-term management. The consensus-derived definition of multimorbidity is the presence of three or more chronic conditions from a finalised list of 23 chronic conditions. We anticipate that our findings will inform multimorbidity conceptualisation at the national level, standardise multimorbidity measurement in primary care and facilitate resource allocation for patients with multimorbidity.

A Systematic Review of Interventions that Use Multidisciplinary Team Meetings to Manage Multimorbidity in Primary Care.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings could facilitate coordination of care for individuals living with multimorbidity, yet there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. We hence explored the common characteristics of MDT meetings in primary care and assessed the effectiveness of interventions that include such meetings, designed to improve outcomes for adults living with multimorbidity. A systematic review of literature was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE. A narrative synthesis was performed, extracting study and MDT meeting characteristics, in addition to any outcomes reported. Four randomised controlled trials that were conducted in the United States of America were identified as eligible, recruiting a total of 3,509 adults living with multimorbidity. Common MDT meeting themes include regular frequency of discussion, the absence of patient involvement and the participation of three or four multiprofessionals. Significant improvements were observed in response to interventions with an MDT component across most measures, yet this trend did not extend to physical health outcomes. It is unclear if the results in this review are sufficient to support the widespread implementation of MDT meetings in primary care, for adults living with multimorbidity. Due to the paucity of studies collated, further research is required to inform widespread implementation.

The multimorbidity collaborative medication review and decision making (MyComrade) study: a pilot cluster randomised trial in two healthcare systems

BackgroundWhile international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MyComrade (MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care.AimThe pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial of the MyComrade intervention across two healthcare systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)).DesignA pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted (clustered at general practice level), using specific progression criteria and a process evaluation framework.SettingGeneral practices in the ROI and NI.ParticipantsEligible practices were those in defined geographical areas who had GP’s and Practice Based Pharmacists (PBP’s) (in NI) willing to conduct medication reviews. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years and over, with multi morbidity and on ten or more medications.InterventionThe MyComrade intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care, using a planned collaborative approach guided by an agreed checklist, within a specified timeframe.Outcome measuresFeasibility outcomes, using pre-determined progression criteria, assessed practice and patient recruitment and retention and intervention acceptability and fidelity. Anonymised patient-related quantitative data, from practice medical records and patient questionnaires were collected at baseline, 4 and 8 months, to inform potential outcome measures for a definitive trial. These included (i) practice outcomes—completion of medication reviews; (ii) patient outcomes—treatment burden and quality of life; (iii) prescribing outcomes—number and changes of prescribed medications and incidents of potentially inappropriate prescribing; and (iv) economic cost analysis. The framework Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT) in conjunction with a priori progression criteria and process evaluation was used to guide the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.ResultsThe recruitment of practices (n = 15) and patients (n = 121, mean age 73 years and 51% female), representing 94% and 38% of a priori targets respectively, was more complex and took longer than anticipated; impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Retention rates of 100% of practices and 85% of patients were achieved. Both practice staff and patients found the intervention acceptable and reported strong fidelity to the My Comrade intervention components. Some practice staff highlighted concerns such as poor communication of the reviews to patients, dissatisfaction regarding incentivisation and in ROI the sustainability of two GPs collaboratively conducting the medication reviews. Assessing outcomes from the collected data was found feasible and appropriate for a definitive trial. Two progression criteria met the ‘Go’ criterion (practice and patient retention), two met the ‘Amend’ criterion (practice recruitment and intervention implementation) and one indicated a ‘Stop – unless changes possible’ (patient recruitment).ConclusionThe MyComrade intervention was found to be feasible to conduct within two different healthcare systems. Recruitment of participants requires significant time and effort given the nature of this population and the pairing of GP and pharmacist may be more sustainable to implement in routine practice.Trial registrationRegistry: ISRCTN, ISRCTN80017020; date of confirmation 4/11/2019; retrospectively registered.

Patterns of multimorbidity in community health centres in Shanghai, China: a retrospective, cross-sectional study based on outpatient data from 2014 to 2018

ObjectiveCaring for patients with multimorbidity is an important part of primary care. It has become increasingly relevant that understanding the spectrum of multimorbidity will help general practitioners (GPs) acquire working...

Managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care

Multimorbidity is usually described as the co-occurrence of two or more chronic medical conditions in the same individual and is related with a reduced quality of life, functional decline, and raised medical expenditure, along with emergency room visits, and specifically with elevated frequency of coexisting illnesses. Multimorbidity poses many difficulties, that can frequently be overburdening. With rising prevalence of multimorbidity across all age groups, both patients encounter many challenges including a sense of isolation in managing multimorbidity. Multimorbidity leads to fragmented care delivery and poorer perception of overall care coordination among patients. Polypharmacy and risks of adverse drug events; treatment burden on the patient, functional problems, especially in the elderly; reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare utilization. Adoption of a multidisciplinary approach in case management and a prioritization of generic outcomes applicable across comorbidities is recommended to achieve this goal. Management of medicines prescribed for multimorbidity is a significant aspect of improving care in patients with multimorbidity. Optimizing medication regimens is a crucial part of treatment and to acquire this, periodic medication reviews are necessary. Close cooperation among pharmacists and clinicians appears to be the most rational technique for this patient category. Medication reviewal must include “deprescription,” which implies cessation of medications which are not required, offer insufficient prognostic advantage, or are resulting in side effects. Comprehensive prescription guidelines may also be beneficial in maximizing the effectiveness of medications. The review also sheds light on the current research on strategies to improve organization and continuity of care, measures to promote patient-centered care, and the role of self-management education programs in multimorbidity.

Handgrip strength but not SARC-F score predicts cognitive impairment in older adults with multimorbidity in primary care: a cohort study

BackgroundAssessing motor function is a simple way to track cognitive impairment. We analysed the associations between cognitive and motor function and assessed the predictive value of two motor function measuring tools for cognitive impairment in older adults with multimorbidity in primary care settings.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study with a 1 year follow-up. Patients aged ≥60 years with ≥2 morbidities were recruited from four primary care clinics. Motor function was assessed using handgrip strength and a sarcopenia screening scale (SARC-F). Cognitive function was measured using the Hong Kong Montreal Cognitive Assessment (HK-MoCA). We defined cognitive impairment as an HK-MoCA score < 22. The associations between cognitive and motor functions were examined from a bidirectional perspective.ResultsWe included 477 participants (mean age 69.4, 68.6% female) with a mean (SD) HK-MoCA score of 25.5 (3.38), SARC-F score of 1.1 (1.36), and handgrip strength of 21.2 (6.99) kg at baseline. Multivariable linear regression models showed bidirectional cross-sectional associations of the HK-MoCA score and cognitive impairment with SARC-F score and handgrip strength at baseline and 1 year. Cox regression revealed a longitudinal association between baseline handgrip strength and cognitive impairment at 1 year (hazard ratio: 0.48, 95% CI 0.33–0.69) but no longitudinal association between SARC-F and cognitive impairment. Variation in the SARC-F score increased with decreasing HK-MoCA score (Brown–Forsythe test F statistic = 17.9, p < 0.001), while variability in the handgrip strength remained small (modified signed-likelihood ratio test, p < 0.001).ConclusionsPrimary healthcare providers may use handgrip strength to track cognitive function decline in older adults with multimorbidity. However, the SARC-F scale may not have the same predictive value. Further research is needed to evaluate the performance and variability of the SARC-F score in individuals with poor cognitive function.

The MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) study: a protocol for a cross-border pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundWhile international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making (MyComrade) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Our aim in this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of a trial of the intervention with unique modifications accounting for contextual variations in two neighbouring health systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)).MethodsA pilot cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, using a mixed-methods process evaluation to investigate the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention based on pre-defined progression criteria. A total of 16 practices will be recruited (eight in ROI; eight in NI), and four practices in each jurisdiction will be randomly allocated to intervention or control. Twenty people living with multimorbidity and prescribed ≥ 10 repeat medications will be recruited from each practice prior to practice randomisation. In intervention practices, the MyComrade intervention will be delivered by pairs of general practitioners (GPs) in ROI, and a GP and practice-based pharmacist (PBP) in NI. The GPs/GP and PBP will schedule the time to review the medications together using a checklist. Usual care will proceed in practices in the control arm. Data will be collected via electronic health records and postal questionnaires at recruitment and 4 and 8 months after randomisation. Qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and explore experiences related to multimorbidity management will be conducted with a purposive sample of GPs, PBPs, practice administration staff and patients in intervention and control practices. The feasibility of conducting a health economic evaluation as part of a future definitive trial will be assessed.DiscussionThe findings of this pilot study will assess the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention in two different health systems. Evaluation of the progression criteria will guide the decision to progress to a definitive trial and inform trial design. The findings will also contribute to the growing evidence-base related to intervention development and feasibility studies.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN80017020. Date of confirmation is 4/11/2019.

Challenges in Multimorbidity Research: Lessons Learned From the Most Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care.

Multimorbidity has received much attention and there is a growing number of original studies. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving outcomes for patient with multimorbidity in primary care. The purpose of this article is to synthesize and analyze the most recent RCTs to identify the factors that may have contribute to the success or lack of success in order to draw lessons to inform further development in intervention research. A scoping review was conducted to include current up-to-date state-of-the-art studies in primary care published from 2019. Nine articles reporting on six RCTs studies were included in the review. The findings were mixed, with primary outcomes showing no differences between intervention and control groups in four of the six but differences in secondary outcomes in all six. All studies involved family practice patients but interventions took place at different sites, and the time between the beginning of the intervention and the time of evaluation of outcomes varied across studies. Authors reported issues regarding the need for training of care teams, the roles and composition of the teams, the selection of patients and implementation barriers of the complex interventions in trying contexts with not enough time for the changes required. The randomized controlled design may not be the best evaluation design given the complexity of the interventions, and alternative designs should be considered in which qualitative components are included. Further attention to outcome measures and to equity issues is recommended.