Achieving diabetes treatment targets in people with registered mental illness is similar or improved compared with those without: Analyses of linked observational datasets.

AIMS: To determine the association between registered mental illness and type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment targets, while taking into account the effects of health expenditure and social determinants of health. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional study was based on routine primary care data, linked to socio-economic and medical claims data. The main outcomes, analysed by multivariate logistic regression, were achieving primary care guideline treatment targets for HbA1c , systolic blood pressure (SBP) and LDL-cholesterol in 2017. We examined the association with diagnosed mental illness registered by the general practitioner (GP) or treated via specialist' mental healthcare between 2016 and 2018, adjusting for, medication use, body mass index, co-morbidity, smoking, and additionally examining effect-modification of healthcare expenditures, migration status, income and demographics. RESULTS: Overall (N = 2862), 64.0% of participants achieved their treatment targets for HbA1c , 65.1% for SBP and 53.0% for LDL-cholesterol. Adjusted for migrant background, income and care expenditures, individuals <65 years of age with mental illness achieved their HbA1c treatment target more often than those without (OR (95% CI)): treatment by GP: 1.46 (1.01, 2.11), specialist care: 1.61 (1.11, 2.34), as did men with mental illness for SBP: GP OR 1.61 (1.09, 2.40), specialist care OR 1.59 (1.09, 2.45). LDL-cholesterol target was not associated with mental illness. A migrant background or low income lowered the likelihood of reaching HbA1c targets. CONCLUSIONS: People with registered mental illness appear comparable or better able to achieve diabetes treatment targets than those without. Achieving HbA1c targets is influenced by social disadvantage.

Assessment of the Adjusted Clinical Groups system in Dutch primary care using electronic health records: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Within the Dutch health care system the focus is shifting from a disease oriented approach to a more population based approach. Since every inhabitant in the Netherlands is registered with one general practice, this offers a unique possibility to perform Population Health Management analyses based on general practitioners' (GP) registries. The Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System is an internationally used method for predictive population analyses. The model categorizes individuals based on their complete health profile, taking into account age, gender, diagnoses and medication. However, the ACG system was developed with non-Dutch data. Consequently, for wider implementation in Dutch general practice, the system needs to be validated in the Dutch healthcare setting. In this paper we show the results of the first use of the ACG system on Dutch GP data. The aim of this study is to explore how well the ACG system can distinguish between different levels of GP healthcare utilization. METHODS: To reach our aim, two variables of the ACG System, the Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADG) and the mutually exclusive ACG categories were explored. The population for this pilot analysis consisted of 23,618 persons listed with five participating general practices within one region in the Netherlands. ACG analyses were performed based on historical Electronic Health Records data from 2014 consisting of primary care diagnoses and pharmaceutical data. Logistic regression models were estimated and AUC's were calculated to explore the diagnostic value of the models including ACGs and ADGs separately with GP healthcare utilization as the dependent variable. The dependent variable was categorized using four different cut-off points: zero, one, two and three visits per year. RESULTS: The ACG and ADG models performed as well as models using International Classification of Primary Care chapters, regarding the association with GP utilization. AUC values were between 0.79 and 0.85. These models performed better than the base model (age and gender only) which showed AUC values between 0.64 and 0.71. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the ACG system is a useful tool to stratify Dutch primary care populations with GP healthcare utilization as the outcome variable.

Validating and Improving Adjusted Clinical Group's Future Hospitalization and High-Cost Prediction Models for Dutch Primary Care.

The rise in health care costs, caused by older and more complex patient populations, requires Population Health Management approaches including risk stratification. With risk stratification, patients are assigned individual risk scores based on medical records. These patient stratifications focus on future high costs and expensive care utilization such as hospitalization, for which different models exist. With this study, the research team validated the accuracy of risk prediction scores for future hospitalization and high health care costs, calculated by the Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG)'s risk stratification models, using Dutch primary health care data registries. In addition, they aimed to adjust the US-based predictive models for Dutch primary care. The statistical validity of the existing models was assessed. In addition, the underlying prediction models were trained on 95,262 patients' data from de Zoetermeer region and externally validated on data of 48,780 patients from Zeist, Nijkerk, and Urk. Information on age, sex, number of general practitioner visits, International Classification of Primary Care coded information on the diagnosis and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification coded information on the prescribed medications, were incorporated in the model. C-statistics were used to validate the discriminatory ability of the models. Calibrating ability was assessed by visual inspection of calibration plots. Adjustment of the hospitalization model based on Dutch data improved C-statistics from 0.69 to 0.75, whereas adjustment of the high-cost model improved C-statistics from 0.78 to 0.85, indicating good discrimination of the models. The models also showed good calibration. In conclusion, the local adjustments of the ACG prediction models show great potential for use in Dutch primary care.

Early identification of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care: data-driven and theory-driven predictive modelling based on electronic medical records of Dutch general practices.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to early identify patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) in primary care by exploring routine care data-based approaches. DESIGN/SETTING: A cohort study based on routine primary care data from 76 general practices in the Netherlands was executed for predictive modelling. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion of 94 440 adult patients was based on: at least 7-year general practice enrolment, having more than one symptom/disease registration and >10 consultations. METHODS: Cases were selected based on the first PSS registration in 2017-2018. Candidate predictors were selected 2-5 years prior to PSS and categorised into data-driven approaches: symptoms/diseases, medications, referrals, sequential patterns and changing lab results; and theory-driven approaches: constructed factors based on literature and terminology in free text. Of these, 12 candidate predictor categories were formed and used to develop prediction models by cross-validated least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression on 80% of the dataset. Derived models were internally validated on the remaining 20% of the dataset. RESULTS: All models had comparable predictive values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves=0.70 to 0.72). Predictors are related to genital complaints, specific symptoms (eg, digestive, fatigue and mood), healthcare utilisation, and number of complaints. Most fruitful predictor categories are literature-based and medications. Predictors often had overlapping constructs, such as digestive symptoms (symptom/disease codes) and drugs for anti-constipation (medication codes), indicating that registration is inconsistent between general practitioners (GPs). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate low to moderate diagnostic accuracy for early identification of PSS based on routine primary care data. Nonetheless, simple clinical decision rules based on structured symptom/disease or medication codes could possibly be an efficient way to support GPs in identifying patients at risk of PSS. A full data-based prediction currently appears to be hampered by inconsistent and missing registrations. Future research on predictive modelling of PSS using routine care data should focus on data enrichment or free-text mining to overcome inconsistent registrations and improve predictive accuracy.

Identifying complex patients using Adjusted Clinical Groups risk stratification tool.

OBJECTIVES: To produce an efficient and practically implementable method, based on primary care data exclusively, to identify patients with complex care needs who have problems in several health domains and are experiencing a mismatch of care. The Johns Hopkins ACG System was explored as a tool for identification, using its Aggregated Diagnosis Group (ADG) categories. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study using general practitioners' electronic health records combined with hospital data. METHODS: A prediction model for patients with complex care needs was developed using a primary care population of 105,345 individuals. Dependent variables in the model included age, sex, and the 32 ADGs. The prediction model was externally validated on 30,793 primary care patients. Discrimination and calibrations were assessed by computing C statistics and by visual inspection of the calibration plot, respectively. RESULTS: Our model was able to discriminate very well between complex and noncomplex patients (C statistic = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92), whereas the calibration plot suggests that the model provides overestimates of complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: With this study, the ACG System has proven to be a useful tool in the identification of patients with complex care needs in primary care, opening up possibilities for tailored interventions of care management for this complex group of patients. Utilizing ADGs, the prediction model that we developed had a very good discriminatory ability to identify those complex patients. However, the calibrating ability of the model still needs improvement.

A systematic review of risk stratification tools internationally used in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been developed as an approach to balance quality with increasing costs. This approach identifies sub-populations with comparable health risks, to tailor interventions for those that will benefit the most. Worldwide, the use of routine healthcare data extracted from electronic health registries for risk stratification approaches is increasing. Different risk stratification tools are used on different levels of the healthcare continuum. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to explore which tools are used in primary healthcare settings and assess their performance. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of studies applying risk stratification tools with health outcomes in primary care populations. Studies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published in English-language journals were included. Search engines were utilized with keywords, for example, "primary care," "risk stratification," and "model." Risk stratification tools were compared based on different measures: area under the curve (AUC) and C-statistics for dichotomous outcomes and R 2 for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: The search provided 4718 articles. Specific election criteria such as primary care populations, generic health utilization outcomes, and routinely collected data sources identified 61 articles, reporting on 31 different models. The three most frequently applied models were the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG, n = 23), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI, n = 19), and the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC, n = 7). Most AUC and C-statistic values were above 0.7, with ACG showing slightly improved scores compared with the CCI and HCC (typically between 0.6 and 0.7). CONCLUSION: Based on statistical performance, the validity of the ACG was the highest, followed by the CCI and the HCC. The ACG also appeared to be the most flexible, with the use of different international coding systems and measuring a wider variety of health outcomes.

Identifying persistent somatic symptoms in electronic health records: exploring multiple theory-driven methods of identification.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent somatic symptoms (PSSs) are defined as symptoms not fully explained by well-established pathophysiological mechanisms and are prevalent in up to 10% of patients in primary care. The present study aimed to explore methods to identify patients with a recognisable risk of having PSS in routine primary care data. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study to explore four identification methods that each cover part of the broad spectrum of PSS was performed. Cases were selected based on (1) PSS-related syndrome codes, (2) PSS-related symptom codes, (3) PSS-related terminology and (4) Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire scores and all methods combined. SETTING: Coded electronic health record data were extracted from 76 general practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were registered for at least 1 year during 2014-2018, were included (n=169 138). OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification methods were explored based on (1) PSS sample sizes and demographics, (2) presence of chronic conditions and (3) healthcare utilisation (HCU) variables. Overlap between methods and practice specific differences were examined. RESULTS: The percentage of cases identified varied between 0.3% and 7.0% across the methods. Over 58.1% of cases had chronic physical condition(s) and over 33.8% had chronic mental condition(s). HCU was generally higher for cases selected by any method compared with the total cohort. HCU was higher for method B compared with the other methods. In 26.7% of cases, cases were selected by multiple methods. Overlap between methods was low. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods yielded different patient samples which were general practice specific. Therefore, for the most comprehensive data-based selection of PSS cases, a combination of methods A, C and D would be recommended. Advanced (data-driven) methods are needed to create a more sensitive algorithm for identifying the full spectrum of PSS. For clinical purposes, method B could possibly support screening of patients who are currently missed in daily practice.

Predicting Future Health Risk in COPD: Differential Impact of Disease-Specific and Multi-Morbidity-Based Risk Stratification.

Objective: Multi-morbidity contributes to mortality and hospitalisation in COPD, but it is uncertain how this interacts with disease severity in risk prediction. We compared contributions of multi-morbidity and disease severity factors in modelling future health risk using UK primary care healthcare data. Methods: Health records from 103,955 patients with COPD identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink were analysed. We compared area under the curve (AUC) statistics for logistic regression (LR) models incorporating disease indices with models incorporating categorised comorbidities. We also compared these models with performance of The John Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups® System (ACG) risk prediction algorithm. Results: LR models predicting all-cause mortality outperformed models predicting hospitalisation. Mortality was best predicted by disease severity (AUC & 95% CI: 0.816 (0.805-0.827)) and prediction was enhanced only marginally by the addition of multi-morbidity indices (AUC & 95% CI: 0.829 (0.818-0.839)). The model combining disease severity and multi-morbidity indices was a better predictor of hospitalisation (AUC & 95% CI: 0.679 (0.672-0.686)). ACG-derived LR models outperformed conventional regression models for hospitalisation (AUC & 95% CI: 0.697 (0.690-0.704)) but not for mortality (AUC & 95% CI: 0.816 (0.805-0.827)). Conclusion: Stratification of future health risk in COPD can be undertaken using clinical and demographic data recorded in primary care, but the impact of disease severity and multi-morbidity varies depending on the choice of health outcome. A more comprehensive risk modelling algorithm such as ACG offers enhanced prediction for hospitalisation by incorporating a wider range of coded diagnoses.