Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 788–793 | Cite as

The Relationship Between Multimorbidity and Patients’ Ratings of Communication

  • Constance H. Fung
  • Claude M. Setodji
  • Fuan-Yue Kung
  • Joan Keesey
  • Steven M. Asch
  • John Adams
  • Elizabeth A. McGlynn
Original Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The growing interest in pay-for-performance and other quality improvement programs has generated concerns about potential performance measurement penalties for providers who care for more complex patients, such as patients with more chronic conditions. Few data are available on how multimorbidity affects common performance metrics.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between multimorbidity and patients’ ratings of communication, a common performance metric.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study

SETTING

Nationally representative sample of U.S. residents

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 15,709 noninstitutionalized adults living in the United States participated in a telephone interview.

MEASUREMENTS

We used 2 different measures of multimorbidity: 1) “individual conditions” approach disregards similarities/concordance among chronic conditions and 2) “condition-groups” approach considers similarities/concordance among conditions. We used a composite measure of patients’ ratings of patient–physician communication.

RESULTS

A higher number of individual conditions is associated with lower ratings of communication, although the magnitude of the relationship is small (adjusted average communication scores: 0 conditions, 12.20; 1–2 conditions, 12.06; 3+ conditions, 11.90; scale range 5 = worst, 15 = best). This relationship remains statistically significant when concordant relationships among conditions are considered (0 condition groups 12.19; 1–2 condition groups 12.03; 3+ condition groups 11.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In our nationally representative sample, patients with more chronic conditions gave their doctors modestly lower patient–doctor communication scores than their healthier counterparts. Accounting for concordance among conditions does not widen the difference in communication scores. Concerns about performance measurement penalty related to patient complexity cannot be entirely addressed by adjusting for multimorbidity. Future studies should focus on other aspects of clinical complexity (e.g., severity, specific combinations of conditions).

KEY WORDS

multimorbidity pay-for-performance patient–physician communication 

References

  1. 1.
    Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS Surveys and Tools. Available at https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/default.asp. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  2. 2.
    Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, et al. The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care. 1998;36:728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Safran DG, Karp M, Coltin K, et al. Measuring patients’ experiences with individual primary care physicians. Results of a statewide demonstration project. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:13–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fung CH, Elliott MN, Hays RD, et al. Patients’ preferences for technical versus interpersonal quality when selecting a primary care physician. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laine C, Davidoff F, Lewis CE, et al. Important elements of outpatient care: a comparison of patients’ and physicians’ opinions. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:640–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pacific Business Group on Health. Healthscope. Available at http://www.healthscope.org/default.asp. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  7. 7.
    Jackson C. California HMO: Doctor bonuses based on patient satisfaction. AMNews Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2001/07/30/bil10730.htm. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  8. 8.
    Ryan R. Primary Care Redesign. The Permanente Journal. Available at http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/fall97pj/redesign.html. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  9. 9.
    Werner RM, Greenfield S, Fung CH, Turner BJ. Measuring Quality of Care in Complex Patients: Findings from a Conference Organized by the Society of General Internal Medicine. Available at http://www.sgim.org/PDF/SGIMReports/MeasuringQualityCareFinalReportOct42006.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  10. 10.
    Werner RM, Greenfield S, Fung C, Turner BJ. Measuring quality of care in patients with multiple clinical conditions: summary of a conference conducted by the Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1206–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yancik R, Ershler W, Satariano W, Hazzard W, Cohen HJ, Ferrucci L. Report of the national institute on aging task force on comorbidity. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:275–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Lapointe L. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:223–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:2269–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parchman ML, Noel PH, Lee S. Primary care attributes, health care system hassles, and chronic illness. Med Care. 2005;43:1123–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tai-Seale M, McGuire TG, Zhang W. Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1871–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 2000–2001:[United States] [Computer file]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Ann Arbor: Center for Studying Health System Change; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:665–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:1509–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frequently Asked Questions. Available at https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/default.asp. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  21. 21.
    Calculate Your Body Mass Index. Available at http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  22. 22.
    Fiellin DA, Reid MC, O’Connor PG. Outpatient management of patients with alcohol problems. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:815–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Available at http://www.hosonline.org/surveys/hos/download/HOS_DUG_PUF_CVIIB.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2008.
  24. 24.
    Katz JN, Chang LC, Sangha O, Fossel AH, Bates DW. Can comorbidity be measured by questionnaire rather than medical record review? Med Care. 1996;34:73–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piette JD, Kerr EA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:725–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schellevis FG, van der Velden J, van de Lisdonk E, van Eijk JT, van Weel C. Comorbidity of chronic diseases in general practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:469–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Roos S, Knottnerus JA. Problems in determining occurrence rates of multimorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:675–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Landon BE, Zaslavsky AM, Bernard SL, Cioffi MJ, Cleary PD. Comparison of performance of traditional Medicare vs Medicare managed care. JAMA. 2004;291:1744–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hargraves JL, Wilson IB, Zaslavsky A, et al. Adjusting for patient characteristics when analyzing reports from patients about hospital care. Med Care. 2001;39:635–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morales LS, Elliott MN, Weech-Maldonado R, Spritzer KL, Hays RD. Differences in CAHPS adult survey reports and ratings by race and ethnicity: an analysis of the National CAHPS benchmarking data 1.0. Health Serv Res. 2001;36:595–617.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Graubard B, Korn E. Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics. 55:652–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Werner RM, Asch DA. Clinical concerns about clinical performance measurement. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:159–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring: The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Min LC, Wenger NS, Fung C, et al. Multimorbidity is associated with better quality of care among vulnerable elders. Med Care. 2007;45:480–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Higashi T, Wenger NS, Adams J, et al. Patients with more medical conditions receive better quality care: analysis of quality data from three large surveys. New Engl J Med. 2007;356:2496–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noel PH, Chris Frueh B, Larme AC, et al. Collaborative care needs and preferences of primary care patients with multimorbidity. Health Expect. 2005;8:54–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nutting PA, Baier M, Werner JJ, Cutter G, Conry C, Stewart L. Competing demands in the office visit: what influences mammography recommendations? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14:352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nutting PA, Rost K, Smith J, Werner JJ, Elliot C. Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1059.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Street RL Jr. Communication in medical encounters: an ecological perspective. In: Thompson TL, Dorsey AM, Miller KI, Parrott R, eds. Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC, Langa D, Flocke SA. Trade-offs in high-volume primary care practice. J Fam Pract. 1998;46:397–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Damiano P, Elliott M, Tyler MC, Hays RD. Differential use of the CAHPS 0–10 global rating scale by Medicaid and commercial populations. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology. 2004;5:193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Safran DG, Taira DA, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Tarlov AR. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J Fam Pract. 1998;47:213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burack JH, Impellizzeri P, Homel P, Cunningham JN Jr. Public reporting of surgical mortality: a survey of New York State cardiothoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:1195–1200. discussion 201–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr., Racz M, Shields E, Chassin MR. Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1994;271:761–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Street RL Jr., Gordon HS, Ward MM, Krupat E, Kravitz RL. Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others. Med Care. 2005;43:960–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Comorbidity: From Bedside to Bench. Summary of the NIA/AGS R13 Conference. Available at www.americangeriatrics.org/research/confseries/CombinedfilesAGSComorbidityPresentation.ppt. Accessed March 12, 2008.

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constance H. Fung
    • 1
    • 4
  • Claude M. Setodji
    • 2
  • Fuan-Yue Kung
    • 2
  • Joan Keesey
    • 2
  • Steven M. Asch
    • 2
    • 3
  • John Adams
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. McGlynn
    • 2
  1. 1.Zynx Health, IncorporatedLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.RANDSanta MonicaUSA
  3. 3.VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations