Dataset Information

[Clinical validation of 2 morbidity groups in the primary care setting].

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Adjusted Morbidity Groups (GMAs) and the Clinical Risk Groups (CRGs) are population morbidity based stratification tools which classify patients into mutually exclusive categories.

Objetive

To compare the stratification provided by the GMAs, CRGs and that carried out by the evaluators according to the levels of complexity.

Design

Random sample stratified by morbidity risk.

Location

Catalonia.

Participants

Forty paired general practitioners in the primary care, matched pairs.

Interventions

Each pair of evaluators had to review 25 clinical records.

Main outputs

The concordance by evaluators, and between the evaluators and the results obtained by the 2 morbidity tools were evaluated according to the kappa index, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicted values.

Results

The concordance between general practitioners pairs was around the kappa value 0.75 (mean value=0.67), between the GMA and the evaluators was similar (mean value=0.63), and higher than for the CRG (mean value=0.35). The general practitioners gave a score of 7.5 over 10 to both tools, although for the most complex strata, according to the professionals' assignment, the GMA obtained better scores than the CRGs. The professionals preferred the GMAs over the CRGs. These differences increased with the complexity level of the patients according to clinical criteria. Overall, less than 2% of serious classification errors were found by both groupers.

Conclusion

The evaluators considered that both grouping systems classified the studied population satisfactorily, although the GMAs showed a better performance for more complex strata. In addition, the clinical raters preferred the GMAs in most cases.

SUBMITTER: Cleries M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7025994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centered care (PCC) has been proposed as the way forward in improving primary care for patients with multi-morbidity. However, it is not clear what PCC exactly looks like in practice for patients with multi-morbidity. A better understanding of multi-morbid patients' views on what PCC should look like and which elements are most important may help to improve care delivery for this vulnerable population. The present study thus aimed to identify views of patients with multi-morbidity on the relative importance of PCC aspects in a Dutch primary care setting. METHODS:Interviews were conducted with 16 patients with multi-morbidity using Q-methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The participants ranked 28 statements about the eight dimensions of PCC (patients' preferences, information and education, access to care, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, physical comfort, and coordination of care) by relative importance. By-person factor analysis using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation were used to reveal factors that represent viewpoints. Qualitative interview data were used to interpret the viewpoints. RESULTS:The analyses revealed three factors representing three distinct viewpoints of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting. Patients with viewpoint 1 are prepared proactive patients who seem to be well-off and want to be in charge of their own care. To do so, they seek medical information and prefer to be supported by a strongly coordinated multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Patients with viewpoint 2 are everyday patients who visit GPs and require well-coordinated, respectful, and supportive care. Patients with viewpoint 3 are vulnerable patients who are less resourceful in terms of communication skills and finances, and thus require accessible care and professionals taking the lead while treating them with dignity and respect. CONCLUSION:The findings of this study suggest that not all patients with multi-morbidity require the same type of care delivery, and that not all aspects of PCC delivery are equally important to all patients.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic diseases have increased needs for assistance and care. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and use of primary care (PC) and hospital care (HC) health services by chronic patients according to risk level based on adjusted morbidity groups (AMG) and to analyze the associated factors.MethodsCross-sectional descriptive observational study. Patients from a basic health area classified as chronically ill by the AMG classification system of the Madrid PC electronic medical record were included. Sociodemographic, clinical-care characteristics (classified as predisposing factors or need factors) and service utilization variables were collected. Univariate, bivariate and simple linear regression analyses were performed.ResultsThe sample consisted of 9866 chronic patients and 8332 (84.4%) used health services. Of these service users, 63% were women, mean age was 55.7 (SD = 20.8), 439 (5.3%) were high risk, 1746 (21.2%) were medium risk, and 6041(73.4%) were low risk. A total of 8226 (98.7%) were PC users, and 4284 (51.4%) were HC users. The average number of annual contacts with PC was 13.9 (SD = 15); the average number of contacts with HC was 4.8 (SD = 6.2). Predisposing factors associated with services utilization at both care levels were: age (B coefficient [BC] = 0.03 and 0.018, 95% CI = 0.017-0.052 and 0.008-0.028, respectively, for PC and HC) and Spanish origin (BC = 0.962 and 3.396, 95% CI = 0.198-1.726 and 2.722-4.070); need factors included: palliative care (BC = 10,492 and 5047; 95% CI = 6457-14,526 and 3098-6995), high risk (BC = 4631 and 2730, 95% CI = 3022-6241 and 1.949-3.512), number of chronic diseases (BC = 1.291 and 0.222, 95% CI = 1.068-1.51 and 0.103-0.341) and neoplasms (BC = 2.989 and 4.309, 95% CI = 1.659-4.319 and 3.629-4.989).ConclusionsThe characteristics and PC and HC service utilization of chronic patients were different and varied according to their AMG risk level. There was greater use of PC services than HC services, although utilization of both levels of care was high. Service use was related to predisposing factors such as age and country of origin and, above all, to need factors such as immobility, high risk, and number and type of chronic diseases that require follow-up and palliative care.

Project description:BackgroundUp-to-date and accurate information about the health problems encountered by primary care doctors is essential to understanding the morbidity pattern of the community to better inform health care policy and practice. Morbidity surveys of doctors allow documentation of actual consultations, reflecting the patient's reason for seeking care as well as the doctor's diagnostic interpretation of the illness and management approach. Such surveys are particularly critical in the absence of a centralized primary care electronic medical record database.ObjectiveWith the changing sociodemographic profile of the population and implementation of health care initiatives in the past 10 years, the aim of this study is to determine the morbidity and management patterns in Hong Kong primary care during a pandemic and compare the results with the last survey conducted in 2007-2008.MethodsThis will be a prospective, practice-based survey of Hong Kong primary care doctors. Participants will be recruited by convenience and targeted sampling from both public and private sectors. Participating doctors will record the health problems and corresponding management activities for consecutive patient encounters during one designated week in each season of the year. Coding of health problems will follow the International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition. Descriptive statistics will be used to calculate the prevalence of health problems and diseases as well as the rates of management activities (referral, investigation, prescription, preventive care). Nonlinear mixed effects models will assess the differences between the private and public sectors as well as factors associated with morbidity and management patterns in primary care.ResultsThe data collection will last from March 1, 2021, to August 31, 2022. As of April 2022, 176 doctor-weeks of data have been collected.ConclusionsThe results will provide information about the health of the community and inform the planning and allocation of health care resources.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04736992; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04736992.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/37334.