Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1205–1210 | Cite as

Are Co-Morbidities Associated with Guideline Adherence? The MI-Plus Study of Medicare Patients

  • Anne E. Sales
  • Edmund F. Tipton
  • Deborah A. Levine
  • Thomas K. Houston
  • Yongin Kim
  • Jeroan Allison
  • Catarina I. Kiefe
Original Article

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The impact of co-morbid illnesses on adherence to guideline recommendations in chronic illness is of growing concern. We tested a framework [Piette and Kerr, Diabetes Care. 29(3):725–31, 2006] of provider adherence to guidelines in the presence of co-morbid conditions, which suggests that the effect of co-morbid conditions depends on treatment recommendations for the co-morbid conditions and how symptomatic they are.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory analysis to assess the framework using chart audit data for 1,240 post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) Medicare beneficiaries in Alabama. We assessed level of guideline-adherent post-AMI care from chart-based quality indicators and constructed scores reflecting how much care for the co-morbid condition was similar to post-AMI care (concordance) and how symptomatic the co-morbid condition is, based on expert opinion.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 74 years, mean co-morbidities of 2, and 61% were white. Both concordance and symptomatic scores were positively associated with guideline compliance, with correlations of 0.32 and 0.14, respectively (p < 0.001 for each). We found positive correlations between highly concordant co-morbid conditions and post-AMI quality scores and negative correlations between highly symptomatic conditions and post-AMI quality scores; both findings support the framework. However, the framework performed less well for conditions that were not highly concordant or highly symptomatic, and the magnitudes of the associations were not large.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework was related to the association of co-morbid conditions with adherence by providers to guideline-recommended treatment for post-AMI patients. The framework holds promise for evaluating and possibly predicting guideline adherence.

KEY WORDS

acute myocardial infarction guideline adherence co-morbid disease multi-morbidity older patients theory testing 

Notes

Acknowledgements and Disclaimers

Drs. Levine, Houston, Allison, and Kiefe were all affiliated with the University of Alabama at Birmingham Division of Preventive Medicine and the UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education when the analyses for this paper were completed.

This project was funded in part by grant numbers R01 HL70786 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and SDR 03-090-1 from the VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D)

The analyses upon which this publication is based were performed under contract number 500–02-AL02, entitled "Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organization for the State (Commonwealth) of Alabama," sponsored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government. The authors assume full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the ideas presented. This article is a direct result of the Health Care Quality Improvement Program initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has encouraged identification of quality improvement projects derived from analysis of patterns of care, and therefore required no special funding on the part of this contractor.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

References

  1. 1.
    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(8):1206–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd CM, Darer JD, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines for older patients with comorbid diseases [4]. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;295(1):34–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59(3):255–63.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Min LC, Elliott MN, Wenger NS, Saliba D. Higher vulnerable elders survey scores predict death and functional decline in vulnerable older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(3):507–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Min LC, Reuben DB, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG, Solomon DH, Higashi T, et al. Predictors of overall quality of care provided to vulnerable older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1705–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Min LC, Wenger NS, Fung C, Chang JT, Ganz DA, Higashi T, et al. Multimorbidity is associated with better quality of care among vulnerable elders. Med Care. 2007;45(6):480–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen ELEM, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM, et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9346):1623–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(20):2269–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vijan S, Hayward RA. Treatment of hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus: blood pressure goals, choice of agents, and setting priorities in diabetes care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(7):593. 602+I70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piette JD, Kerr EA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(3):725–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piette JD, Richardson C, Valenstein M. Addressing the needs of patients with multiple chronic illnesses: the case of diabetes and depression. American Journal of Managed Care. 2004;10(2 II):152–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayward RA. Diabetes care priorities: Preventing cardiovascular complications. Pract Matters. 2000;5:1–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dixon LB, Kreyenbuhl JA, Dickerson FB, Donner TW, Brown CH, Wolheiter K, et al. A comparison of type 2 diabetes outcomes among persons with and without severe mental illnesses. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55(8):892–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreyenbuhl J, Dickerson FB, Medoff DR, Brown CH, Goldberg RW, Fang L, et al. Extent and Management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes and serious mental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006;194(6):404–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Desai MM, Rosenheck RA, Druss BG, Perlin JB. Mental disorders and quality of diabetes care in the veterans health administration. Am J Psychiatr. 2002;159(9):1584–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Druss BG, Marcus SC, Olfson M, Tanielian T, Elinson L, Pincus HA. Comparing the national economic burden of five chronic conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20(6):233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: Implications for pay for performance. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell-Cope GM, Luther S, Neugaard B, Vara J, Nelson A. Provider-perceived barriers and facilitators for ischaemic heart disease (IHD) guideline adherence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10(2):227–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-C, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines?: A framework for improvement. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(15):1458–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: Implications for pay for performance. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spertus JA, Radford MJ, Every NR, Ellerbeck EF, Peterson ED, Krumholz HM. Challenges and opportunities in quantifying the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: Summary from the acute myocardial infarction working group of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology First Scientific Forum on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke. Circulation. 2003;107(12):1681–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krumholz HM, Anderson JL, Brooks NH, Fesmire FM, Lambrew CT, Landrum MB, et al. ACC/AHA clinical performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Performance Measures on ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction). Circulation. 2006;113(5):732–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, DeLong ER, Lytle BL, Brindis RG, et al. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1912–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne E. Sales
    • 1
    • 5
  • Edmund F. Tipton
    • 2
  • Deborah A. Levine
    • 3
  • Thomas K. Houston
    • 4
  • Yongin Kim
    • 2
  • Jeroan Allison
    • 4
  • Catarina I. Kiefe
    • 4
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and The University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  5. 5.Faculty of Nursing and Department of Family MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations