Evaluating palliative care case conferences in primary care for patients with advanced non-malignant chronic conditions: a cluster-randomised controlled trial (KOPAL).

BACKGROUND: Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia are underrepresented in specialist palliative home care (SPHC). However, the complexity of their conditions requires collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and SPHC teams and timely integration into SPHC to effectively meet their needs. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate joint palliative care planning and the timely transfer of patients with advanced chronic non-malignant conditions to SPHC. METHODS: A two-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomised controlled trial. 49 GP practices in northern Germany were randomised using web-based block randomisation. We included patients with advanced CHF, COPD and/or dementia. The KOPAL intervention consisted of a SPHC nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference between SPHC team and GP. The primary outcome was the number of hospital admissions 48 weeks after baseline. Secondary analyses examined the effects on health-related quality of life and self-rated health status, as measured by the EuroQol 5D scale. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients were included in the analyses. 80.4% of GP practices had worked with SHPC before, most of them exclusively for cancer patients. At baseline, patients reported a mean EQ-VAS of 48.4, a mean quality of life index (EQ-5D-5L) of 0.63 and an average of 0.80 hospital admissions in the previous year. The intervention did not significantly reduce hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.79, 95%CI: [0.49, 1.26], P = 0.31) or the number of days spent in hospital (incidence rate ratio = 0.65, 95%CI: [0.28, 1.49], P = 0.29). There was also no significant effect on quality of life (∆ = -0.02, 95%CI: [-0.09, 0.05], P = 0.53) or self-rated health (∆ = -2.48, 95%CI: [-9.95, 4.99], P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not show the hypothesised effect on hospitalisations and health-related quality of life. Future research should focus on refining this approach, with particular emphasis on optimising the timing of case conferences and implementing discussed changes to treatment plans, to improve collaboration between GPs and SPHC teams.

Cost-effectiveness of a specialist palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional case conference for patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: results of the KOPAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, progressive chronic, non-malignant diseases are highly prevalent. Especially with increasing age, they are characterised by high hospitalisation rates and high healthcare costs. Improved interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams might reduce hospitalisation while improving symptoms and quality of life, or preventing them from deterioration. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of a newly developed intervention in patients with advanced chronic, non-malignant diseases consisting of a structured palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference. METHODS: The analysis was based on data from 172 participants of the KOPAL multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients with advanced congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or dementia were randomised into intervention group (IG) and control group (CG, usual care). Cost-effectiveness was examined over 48 weeks from a societal and healthcare payer's perspective. Effects were quantified as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, EQ-5D-5L). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. RESULTS: Baseline imbalances in costs and effects could be observed between IG and CG. After adjusting for these imbalances and compared to the CG, mean costs in the IG were non-significantly higher from a societal and lower from a payer's perspective. On the effect side, the IG had marginally lower mean QALYs. The results were characterized by high statistical uncertainty, indicated by large confidence intervals for the cost and effect differences between groups and probabilities of cost-effectiveness between 18% and 65%, depending on the perspective and willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness of the KOPAL intervention was uncertain. The results highlighted (methodological) challenges of economic evaluations in patients with chronic, non-malignant diseases related to sample size, heterogeneity of participants, and the way the intervention effectiveness is typically captured in economic evaluations.

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.

BACKGROUND: Older 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Twelve 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Experiences of patients with multimorbidity with primary care and the association with patient activation: a cross-sectional study in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the association between patient activation and patients' experience of care among an elderly multimorbid population in Germany. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care practices in two German settings. PARTICIPANTS: 346 patients with 3 or more chronic conditions aged 65 years and over from 36 primary care practices. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient activation was measured with the patient activation measure (PAM). To assess patient experiences with primary care, a set of questions concerning domains of primary care were included. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to examine which domains of care were associated with patient activation. RESULTS: Out of 1243 invited patients, a total of 346 took part in the study (participation rate 27.8 %). Mean PAM score was 76.1. Across all patients, 3.8% achieved PAM level 1, 7.5% level 2, 27.2% level 3% and 60.7% level 4. PAM scores suggest a highly activated patient group. In the regression analysis, three out ten domains of patients' experiences showed an association with patient activation. The domains 'being involved in decision as much as desired' (B=-8.56, p=0.012) and 'receiving a self-management plan' (B=6.51, p=0.051) were associated with higher patient activation scores. Patients with an up-to-date medication plan had lower patient activation scores (B=-12.01, p=0.041). CONCLUSION: Specific domains of primary care were found to be associated with patient activation. To enhance patient activation, primary care physicians may increase involvement of patients in decisions. Future research should examine the causality of these associations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015718.

Adaptation and validation of a German version of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple long-term conditions often face a variety of challenges arising from the requirements of their health care. Knowledge of perceived treatment burden is crucial for optimizing treatment. In this study, we aimed to create a German version of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and to evaluate its validity. METHODS: The steps to translate the MTBQ included forward/back translation, cognitive interviews (n = 6) and a pilot test (n = 7). Psychometric properties of the scale were assessed in a cross-sectional survey with primary care patients aged 65 and older with at least 3 long-term conditions (n = 344). We examined the distribution of responses, dimensionality, internal reliability and construct validity. RESULTS: Cognitive interviewing and piloting led to minor modifications and showed overall good face validity and acceptability. As expected, we observed a positively skewed response distribution for all items. Reliability was acceptable with McDonald's omega = 0.71. Factor analysis suggested one common factor while model fit indices were inconclusive. Predefined hypotheses regarding the construct validity were supported by negative associations between treatment burden and health-related quality of life, self-rated health, social support, patient activation and medication adherence, and positive associations between treatment burden and number of comorbidities. Treatment burden was found to be higher in female participants (Mdn1 = 6.82, Mdn2 = 4.55; U = 11,729, p = 0.001) and participants with mental health diagnoses (Mdn1 = 9.10, Mdn2 = 4.55; U = 3172, p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: The German MTBQ exhibited good psychometric properties and can be used to assess the perceived treatment burden of patients with multimorbidity.

Measuring the Quality of Care for Older Adults With Multimorbidity: Results of the MULTIqual Project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Providing health care for older adults with multimorbidity is often complex, challenging, and prone to fragmentation. Although clinical decision making should take into account treatment interactions, individual burden, and resources, current approaches to assessing quality of care mostly rely on indicators for single conditions. The aim of this project was to develop a set of generic quality indicators for the management of patients aged 65 and older with multimorbidity that can be used in both health care research and clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on the findings of a systematic literature review and eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and their family members, we developed candidate indicators. Identified aspects of quality were mapped to core domains of health care to obtain a guiding framework for quality-of-care assessment. Using nominal group technique, indicators were rated by a multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 23) following standardized criteria. RESULTS: We derived 47 candidate quality indicators from the literature and 4 additional indicators from the results of the focus groups. The expert panel selected a set of 25 indicators, which can be assigned to the levels of patient factors, patient-provider communication, and context and organizational structures of the conceptual framework. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We developed a comprehensive indicator set for the management of multimorbidity that can help to highlight areas with potential for improving the quality of care and support application of multimorbidity guidelines. Furthermore, this study may serve as a blueprint for participatory designs in the development of quality indicators.

Quality of care for people with multimorbidity: a focus group study with patients and their relatives.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of people with multimorbidity rises. Multimorbidity constitutes a challenge to the healthcare system, and treatment of patients with multimorbidity is prone to high-quality variations. Currently, no set of quality indicators (QIs) exists to assess quality of care, let alone incorporating the patient perspective. We therefore aim to identify aspects of quality of care relevant to the patients' perspective and match them to a literature-based set of QIs. METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and three focus groups with patients' relatives using a semistructured guide. Data were analysed using Kuckartz's qualitative content analysis. We derived deductive categories from the literature, added inductive categories (new quality aspects) and translated them into QI. RESULTS: We created four new QIs based on the quality aspects relevant to patients/relatives. Two QIs (patient education/self-management, regular updates of medication plans) were consented by an expert panel, while two others were not (periodical check-ups, general practitioner-coordinated care). Half of the literature-based QIs, for example, assessment of biopsychosocial support needs, were supported by participants' accounts, while more technical domains regarding assessment and treatment regimens were not addressed in the focus groups. CONCLUSION: We show that focus groups with patients and relatives adding relevant aspects in QI development should be incorporated by default in QI development processes and constitute a reasonable addition to traditional QI development. Our QI set constitutes a framework for assessing the quality of care in the German healthcare system. It will facilitate implementation of treatment standards and increase the use of existing guidelines, hereby helping to reduce overuse, underuse and misuse of healthcare resources in the treatment of patients with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German clinical trials registry (DRKS00015718), Pre-Results.