Dataset Information

Multi-Morbidity in Hospitalised Older Patients: Who Are the Complex Elderly?

ABSTRACT:

Background

No formal definition for the "complex elderly" exists; moreover, these older patients with high levels of multi-morbidity are not readily identified as such at point of hospitalisation, thus missing a valuable opportunity to manage the older patient appropriately within the hospital setting.

Objectives

To empirically identify the complex elderly patient based on degree of multi-morbidity.

Design

Retrospective observational study using administrative data.

Setting

English hospitals during the financial year 2012-13.

Subjects

All admitted patients aged 65 years and over.

Methods

By using exploratory analysis (correspondence analysis) we identify multi-morbidity groups based on 20 target conditions whose hospital prevalence was ? 1%.

Results

We examined a total of 2788900 hospital admissions. Multi-morbidity was highly prevalent, 62.8% had 2 or more of the targeted conditions while 4.7% had six or more. Multi-morbidity increased with age from 56% (65-69yr age-groups) up to 67% (80-84yr age-group). The average multi-morbidity was 3.2±1.2 (SD). Correspondence analysis revealed 3 distinct groups of older patients. Group 1 (multi-morbidity ?2), associated with cancer and/or metastasis; Group 2 (multi-morbidity of 3, 4 or 5), associated with chronic pulmonary disease, lung disease, rheumatism and osteoporosis; finally Group 3 with the highest level of multi-morbidity (?6) and associated with heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes, hypertension and myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

By using widely available hospital administrative data, we propose patients in Groups 2 and 3 to be identified as the complex elderly. Identification of multi-morbidity patterns can help to predict the needs of the older patient and improve resource provision.

SUBMITTER: Ruiz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4696783 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.ObjectivesWe examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.Search methodsIn this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.Selection criteriaWe included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.Main resultsIn this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Authors' conclusionsMedication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent health policy promoting integrated care emphasizes to increase patients' health, experience of quality of care and reduce care utilization. Thus, health service delivery should be co-produced by health professionals and individual patients with multiple diseases and complex needs. Collaborative goal setting is a new procedure for older patients with multi-morbidity. The aim is to explore municipal health professionals' experiences of collaborative goal setting with patients with multi-morbidity aged 80 and above. METHODS:A qualitative study with a constructivist grounded theory approach. In total twenty-four health professionals from several health care services in four municipalities, participated in four focus group discussions. RESULTS:Health professionals took four approaches to goal setting with older patients with multi-morbidity: motivating for goals, vicariously setting goals, negotiating goals, and specifying goals. When 'motivating for goals', they educated reluctant patients to set goals. Patients' capacity or willingness to set goals could be reduced, due to old age, illness or less knowledge about the health system. Health professionals were 'vicariously setting goals' when patients did not express or take responsibility for goals due to adaptation processes to disease, or symptoms as cognitive impairment or exhaustion. By 'Negotiating goals', health professionals handled disagreements with patients, and often relatives, who expected to receive more services than usual care. They perceived some patients as passive or having unrealistic goals to improve health. 'Specifying goals' was a collaboration. Patients currently treated for one condition, set sub-goals to increase health. Patients with complex diseases prioritized one goal to maintain health. These approaches constitute a conceptual model of how health professionals, to varying extents, share responsibility for goal setting with patients. CONCLUSIONS:Goal setting for patients with multi-morbidity were carried out in an interplay between patients' varying levels of engagement and health professionals' attitudes regarding to what extents patients should be responsible for pursuing the integrated health services' objectives. Even though goal setting seeks to involve patients in co-production of their health service delivery, the health services´ aims and context could restrict this co-production.

Project description:Little is known about resilience in an internal medicine setting. We aimed to assess the relationship between resilience and frailty and other clinical and sociodemographic characteristics in a cohort of prospectively enrolled hospitalised patients. In 2017-2019, we consecutively enrolled patients in our internal medicine wards. We selected all patients who filled in the 25-item Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Mean resilience was evaluated according to baseline demographic (i.e., age, sex, marital and socioeconomic status) and clinical (i.e., Cumulative Illness Rating Scale [CIRS], Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], Barthel index, Short Blessed test, length of stay [LOS]) data. A multivariable analysis for assessing factors affecting resilience was fitted. Overall, 143 patients (median age 69 years, interquartile range 52-79, 74 females) were included. Resilience was significantly lower in frail (p = 0.010), elderly (p = 0.021), dependent (p = 0.032), and more clinically (p = 0.028) and cognitively compromised patients (p = 0.028), and in those with a low educational status (p = 0.032). No relation between resilience and LOS was noticed (p = 0.597). Frail patients were significantly older (p < 0.001), had a greater disease burden as measured by CIRS comorbidity (p < 0.001) and severity indexes (p < 0.001), were more dependent (p < 0.001), more cognitively impaired (p < 0.001), and displayed a lower educational level (p = 0.011) compared to non-frail patients. At multivariable analysis, frailty (p = 0.022) and dependency (p = 0.031; according to the Barthel index) were associated with lower resilience in the age groups 18-64 and ≥ 65 years, respectively. Low resilience was associated with frailty and dependency with an age-dependent fashion. Studies assessing the impact of this finding on important health outcomes are needed. Clinical Complexity in Internal Medicine Wards. San MAtteo Complexity Study (SMAC); NCT03439410 . Registered 01/11/2017.

Project description:ObjectivesTo support the shift from disease-oriented towards goal-oriented care, we aimed to develop a tool which is capable both to identify priorities of an individual older hospitalised patient and to measure the outcomes relevant to him.DesignMixed-methods design with open interviews, three step test interviews (TSTIs) and a quantitative field test.SettingUniversity teaching hospital and a regional teaching hospital.ParticipantsHospitalised patients ages 70 years and older.ResultsThe Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) consists of a baseline questionnaire and an evaluation questionnaire. Items were based on 15 qualitative interviews with hospitalised older patients. Feedback from a panel of four community-dwelling older persons resulted in some adaptations to wording and one additional item. Twenty-six hospitalised older patients participated in TSTIs with Version 1 of the baseline questionnaire, revealing indications for a good content validity and barriers in completion behaviour, global understanding and understanding of individual items, which were solved with several adaptations. Four additions were made by participants. After TSTIs with ten patients with the evaluation questionnaire, one adaptation was made. A field test with 91 hospitalised older patients revealed a small number of missing values.To enhance the feasibility, the number of items was reduced from 32 to 22, based on correlations and mean impact score. The field test was repeated with 104 other patients in a regional teaching hospital. To enhance the understanding, the tool was split into two phases. This version was tested with TSTIs with eight patients and appeared to be understandable. The final version was an interview-based tool and took about 11 min to complete.ConclusionsThe P-BAS HOP is a potentially suitable tool to identify priorities and relevant outcomes of the individual patient. Further research is needed to investigate its validity, reliability and responsiveness.