The extent and burden of high multimorbidity on older adults in the US: a descriptive analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The impact of multimorbidity (≥ 2 chronic diseases) on the well-being of older adults is substantial but variable. The burden of multimorbidity varies by the number and kinds of conditions, and timing of onset. The impact varies by age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health indicators. Large scale longitudinal surveys linked to medical claims provide unique opportunities to characterize this variability. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare-linked Health and Retirement Study data for respondents 65 and older with 3 or more years of fee-for-service coverage (n = 17,199; 2000-2016). We applied standardized claims algorithms for operationalizing 21 chronic diseases. We compared multimorbidity levels, demographics, and outcomes at baseline and over time and escalation to high multimorbidity levels (≥ 5 conditions). RESULTS: At baseline, 51.2% had no multimorbidity, 36.5% had multimorbidity, and 12.4% had high multimorbidity. Loss of function, cognitive decline, and higher healthcare utilization were up to ten times more prevalent in the high multimorbidity group. Greater rates of high multimorbidity were seen among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic groups, those with lower wealth, younger birth cohorts, and adults with obesity. Rates of transition to high multimorbidity varied greatly and was highest among Hispanic and respondents with lower education. CONCLUSIONS: The development and progression of multimorbidity in old age is influenced by many factors. Higher levels of multimorbidity are associated with sociodemographic characteristics, suggesting possible mitigation strategies.

Patient-Facing Clinical Decision Support for High Blood Pressure Control: Patient Survey.

BACKGROUND: High blood pressure (HBP) affects nearly half of adults in the United States and is a major factor in heart attacks, strokes, kidney disease, and other morbidities. To reduce risk, guidelines for HBP contain more than 70 recommendations, including many related to patient behaviors, such as home monitoring and lifestyle changes. Thus, the patient's role in controlling HBP is crucial. Patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) tools may help patients adhere to evidence-based care, but customization is required. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to understand how to adapt CDS to best engage patients in controlling HBP. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with two phases: (1) survey-guided interviews with a limited cohort and (2) a nationwide web-based survey. Participation in each phase was limited to adults aged between 18 and 85 years who had been diagnosed with hypertension. The survey included general questions that assessed goal setting, treatment priorities, medication load, comorbid conditions, satisfaction with blood pressure (BP) management, and attitudes toward CDS, and also a series of questions regarding A/B preferences using paired information displays to assess perceived trustworthiness of potential CDS user interface options. RESULTS: We conducted 17 survey-guided interviews to gather patient needs from CDS, then analyzed results and created a second survey of 519 adults with clinically diagnosed HBP. A large majority of participants reported that BP control was a high priority (83%), had monitored BP at home (82%), and felt comfortable using technology (88%). Survey respondents found displays with more detailed recommendations more trustworthy (56%-77% of them preferred simpler displays), especially when incorporating social trust and priorities from providers and patients like them, but had no differences in action taken. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents to the survey felt that CDS capabilities could help them with HBP control. The more detailed design options for BP display and recommendations messaging were considered the most trustworthy yet did not differentiate perceived actions.

Provider Perspectives on Patient- and Provider-Facing High Blood Pressure Clinical Decision Support.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension, persistent high blood pressures (HBP) leading to chronic physiologic changes, is a common condition that is a major predictor of heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions. Despite strong evidence, care teams and patients are inconsistently adherent to HBP guideline recommendations. Patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) could help improve recommendation adherence but must also be acceptable to clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to partly address the challenge of developing a patient-facing CDS application, we sought to understand provider variations and rationales related to HBP guideline recommendations and perceptions regarding patient role and use of digital tools. METHODS: We engaged hypertension experts and primary care respondents to iteratively develop and implement a pilot survey and a final survey which presented five clinical cases that queried clinicians' attitudes related to actions; variations; prioritization; patient input; importance; and barriers for HBP diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment. Analysis of Likert's scale scores was descriptive with content analysis for free-text answers. RESULTS: Fifteen hypertension experts and 14 providers took the pilot and final version of the surveys, respectively. The majority (>80%) of providers felt the recommendations were important, yet found them difficult to follow-up to 90% of the time. Perceptions of relative amounts of patient input and patient work for effective HBP management ranged from 22 to 100%. Stated reasons for variation included adverse effects of treatment, patient comorbidities, shared decision-making, and health care cost and access issues. Providers were generally positive toward patient use of electronic CDS applications but worried about access to health care, nuance of recommendations, and patient understanding of the tools. CONCLUSION: At baseline, provider management of HBP is heterogeneous. Providers were accepting of patient-facing CDS but reported preferences for that CDS to capture the complexity and nuance of guideline recommendations.