Simple approaches to characterising multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) and rates of emergency hospital admission: Findings from 495,465 UK Biobank participants.

BACKGROUND: Numerous approaches are used to characterise multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), including counts and indices. Few studies have compared approaches within the same dataset. We aimed to characterise MLTC using simple approaches, and compare their prevalence estimates of MLTC and associations with emergency hospital admission in the UK Biobank. METHODS: We used baseline data from 495,465 participants (age 38-73 years) to characterise MLTC using four approaches: Charlson index (CI), Byles index (BI), count of 43 conditions (CC) and count of body systems affected (BC). We defined MLTC as more than two conditions using CI, BI and CC, and more than two body systems using BC. We categorised scores (incorporating weightings for the indices) from each approach as 0, 1, 2 and 3+. We used linked hospital episode statistics and performed survival analyses to test associations with an endpoint of emergency hospital admission or death over 5 years. RESULTS: The prevalence of MLTC was 44% (BC), 33% (CC), 6% (BI) and 2% (CI). Higher scores using all approaches were associated with greater outcome rates independent of sex and age group. For example, using CC, compared with score 0, score 2 had 1.95 (95% CI: 1.91, 1.99) and a score of 3+ had 3.12 (95% CI: 3.06, 3.18) times greater outcome rates. The discriminant value of all approaches was modest (C-statistics 0.60-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The counts classified a greater proportion as having MLTC than the indices, highlighting that prevalence estimates of MLTC vary depending on the approach. All approaches had strong statistical associations with emergency hospital admission but a modest ability to identify individuals at risk.

Rising to the challenge of defining and operationalising multimorbidity in a UK hospital setting: the ADMISSION research collaborative.

PURPOSE: Greater transparency and consistency when defining multimorbidity in different settings is needed. We aimed to: (1) adapt published principles that can guide the selection of long-term conditions for inclusion in research studies of multimorbidity in hospitals; (2) apply these principles and identify a list of long-term conditions; (3) operationalise this list by mapping it to International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) codes. METHODS: Review by independent assessors and ratification by an interdisciplinary programme management group. RESULTS: Agreement was reached that when defining multimorbidity in hospitals for research purposes all conditions must meet the following four criteria: (1) medical diagnosis; (2) typically present for ≥ 12 months; (3) at least one of currently active; permanent in effect; requiring current treatment, care or therapy; requiring surveillance; remitting-relapsing and requiring ongoing treatment or care, and; (4) lead to at least one of: significantly increased risk of death; significantly reduced quality of life; frailty or physical disability; significantly worsened mental health; significantly increased treatment burden (indicated by an increased risk of hospital admission or increased length of hospital stay). Application of these principles to two existing lists of conditions led to the selection of 60 conditions that can be used when defining multimorbidity for research focused on hospitalised patients. ICD-10 codes were identified for each of these conditions to ensure consistency in their operationalisation. CONCLUSIONS: This work contributes to achieving the goal of greater transparency and consistency in the approach to the study of multimorbidity, with a specific focus on the UK hospital setting.