RESUMO
Objectives: To explore travel burden in patients with multimorbidity and analyze patients with high travel burden, to stimulate actions towards adequate access and (remote) care coordination for these patients. Design: A retrospective, cross-sectional, explorative proof of concept study. Setting and Participants: Electronic health record data of all patients who visited our academic hospital in 2017 were used. Patients with a valid 4-digit postal code, aged ≥18 years, had >1 chronic or oncological condition and had >1 outpatient visits with >1 specialties were included. Methods: Travel burden (hours/year) was calculated as: travel time in hours × number of outpatient visit days per patient in one year × 2. Baseline variables were analyzed using univariate statistics. Patients were stratified into two groups by the median travel burden. The contribution of travel time (dichotomized) and the number of outpatient clinic visits days (dichotomized) to the travel burden was examined with binary logistic regression by adding these variables consecutively to a crude model with age, sex and number of diagnosis. National maps exploring the geographic variation of multimorbidity and travel burden were built. Furthermore, maps showing the distribution of socioeconomic status (SES) and proportion of older age (≥65 years) of the general population were built. Results: A total of 14 476 patients were included (54.4% female, mean age 57.3 years ([± standard deviation] = ± 16.6 years). Patients travelled an average of 0.42 (± 0.33) hours to the hospital per (one-way) visit with a median travel burden of 3.19 hours/year (interquartile range (IQR) 1.68 - 6.20). Care consumption variables, such as higher number of diagnosis and treating specialties in the outpatient clinic were more frequent in patients with higher travel burden. High travel time showed a higher Odds Ratio (OR = 578 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 353 - 947), p < 0.01) than having high number of outpatient clinic visit days (OR = 237, 95% CI = 144 - 338), p < 0.01) to having a high travel burden in the final regression model. Conclusions and implications: The geographic representation of patients with multimorbidity and their travel burden varied but coincided locally with lower SES and older age in the general population. Future studies should aim on identifying patients with high travel burden and low SES, creating opportunity for adequate (remote) care coordination.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hospital care organization, structured around medical specialties and focused on the separate treatment of individual organ systems, is challenged by the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity. To support the hospitals' realization of multidisciplinary care, we hypothesized that using machine learning on clinical data helps to identify groups of medical specialties who are simultaneously involved in hospital care for patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients in a Dutch general hospital and used a fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm for the analysis. We explored the patients' membership degrees in each cluster to identify subgroups of medical specialties that provide care to the same patients with multimorbidity. We used retrospectively collected electronic health record data from 2017. We extracted data from 22,133 patients aged ≥18 years who had received outpatient clinical care for two or more chronic and/ or oncological diagnoses. RESULTS: We found six clusters of medical specialties and identified 22 subgroups. The clusters were labeled based on the specialties that most characterized them: 1. dermatology/ plastic surgery, 2. six specialties (gynecology/ rheumatology/ orthopedic surgery/ urology/ gastroenterology/ otorhinolaryngology), 3. pulmonology, 4. internal medicine/ cardiology/ geriatrics, 5. neurology/ physiatry (rehabilitation)/ anesthesiology, and 6. internal medicine. Most patients had a full or dominant membership to one of these clusters of medical specialties (11 subgroups), whereas fewer patients had a membership to two clusters. The prevalence of specific diagnosis groups, patient characteristics, and healthcare utilization differed between subgroups. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that clusters and subgroups of medical specialties simultaneously involved in hospital care for patients with multimorbidity can be identified with fuzzy c-means cluster analysis using clinical data. Clusters and subgroups differed regarding the involved medical specialties, diagnoses, patient characteristics, and healthcare utilization. With this strategy, hospitals and medical specialists can further analyze which subgroups are target populations that might benefit from improved multidisciplinary collaboration.
