Skip to main content

Development of a care guidance index based on what matters to patients

Quality of Life Research volume 27, pages 51–58 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Targeting resources for a designated higher-risk subgroup is a strategy for chronic care management. However, risk-designation has several limitations: it is inaccurate, seldom helpful for care guidance, and potentially misallocates care away from many patients.

Methods

To address limitations of risk designation, we tested a “what matters index” (WMI) in 19,593 adult patients with chronic conditions. The WMI contains five binary measures: insufficient confidence to manage health problems, level of pain, emotional problems, polypharmacy, and adverse medication effects. We examined its sum for association with patient-reported quality of life and prior emergency or hospital use. We compared its accuracy to a prototypic risk-designation model.

Results

The WMI was a good indicator for quality of life and in three diverse test populations it was strongly associated with the use of hospital and emergency services. For example, a sum of WMI ≥2 was associated with twice as many average uses as none; for ≥3, uses were three times higher. However, since relatively few patients use costly care, both the WMI and a prototypic risk-designation model had comparably low-positive predictive values.

Summary

The WMI uses the patient voice to identify needs strongly associated with quality of life. Akin to risk designation models, the WMI can be used to place patients into groups associated with levels of costly services, but neither is likely to forecast costly service use for individuals. However, unlike risk-designation models, the WMI is based on measures that will immediately guide care for every patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Bodenheimer, T., Chen, E., & Bennett, H. D. (2009). Confronting the growing burden of chronic disease: can the U.S. health care workforce do the job? Health Affairs, 28(1), 64–74. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.64. (Millwood).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sinsky, C., Colligan, L., Prgomet, M., et al. (2016). Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: A time and motion study in 4 specialties. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 753–760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vital Signs: Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress. (2015). In D. Blumenthal, E. Malphrus, and J. Michael McGinnis, (Eds.), Committee on Core Metrics for Better Health at Lower Cost; Institute of Medicine.

  4. Improving Chronic Illness Care. (2017). The chronic care model. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=The_Chronic_Care_Model&s=2.

  5. Wasson, J. H., & Coleman, E. A. (2014). Health confidence: A simple, essential measure for patient engagement and better practice. Family Practice Management, 21(5), 8–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hippisley-Cox, J., & Coupland, C. (2013). Predicting risk of emergency admission to hospital using primary care data: Derivation and validation of QAdmissions score. British Medical Journal Open, 3, e003482. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003482.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wherry, L. R., Burns, M. E., & Leininger, L. J. (2014). Using self-reported health measures to predict high need cases among medicaid eligible adults. Health Services Research, 49, 2147–2172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stiell, I., Wells, G., Laupacis, A., et al. (1995). Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group. BMJ, 311(7005), 594–597.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stokes, J., Panagioti, M., Alam, R., Checkland, K., Cheraghi-Sohi, S., et al. (2015). Effectiveness of case management for ‘At Risk’ patients in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0132340. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132340.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Damey, S., Flanagan, S., & Combes, G. (2016). Does integrated care reduce hospital activity for patients with chronic diseases? An umbrella review of systematic reviews. British Medical Journal Open, 6, e011952.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zulman, D. M., Chee, C. P., Ezeji-Okoye, S. C., Shaw, J. G., Homes, T. H., Kahn, J. S., et al. (2017). Effective of an intensive outpatient program to augment primary care for high-need veterans affairs patients: A randomized trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(2), 166–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W. (1990). The functional status of patients: How can it be measured in physicians’ offices? Medical Care, 28(12), 1111–1126.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wasson, J. H., & Bartels, S. (2009). CARE vital signs supports patient-centered collaborative care. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 32, 56–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wasson, J. H., Sox, H. C., Goldman, L., & Neff, R. K. (1985). Clinical Prediction Rules: Applications and methodological standards. New England Journal of Medicine, 313(13), 793–799.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wasson, J. H., & Sox, H. C. (1996). Clinical prediction rules have they come of age? JAMA, 275(8), 641–642.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wasson, J. H. (2013). A patient-reported spectrum of adverse health care experiences: Harms, unnecessary care, medication illness, and low health confidence. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 36(3), 245–2503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hibbard, J. H., Greene, J., Sacks, R., Overton, V., & Parrotta, C. D. (2016). Adding a measure of patient self-management capability to risk assessment can improve prediction of high costs. Health Affairs, 35(3), 489–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wasson, J. H., Johnson, D. J., & Mackenzie, T. (2008). The impact of primary care patients’ pain and emotional problems on their confidence with self-management. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 31, 120–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahles, T. A., Wasson, J. W., Seville, J. L., Johnson, D. J., et al. (2006). A controlled trial of methods for managing pain in primary care patients with or without co-occurring psychosocial problems. The Annals of Family Medicine, 4(3), 341–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Budnitz, D. S., Lovegrove, M. C., & Shehab, N. (2011). Richards CL emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. New England Journal of Medicine, 365, 2002–2012.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nelson, E. C., Eftimovska, E., Lind, C., Hager, A., Wasson, J. H., & Lindblad, S. (2015). Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ, 350, g7818. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bierman, A. S., Bubolz, T. A., Fisher, E. S., & Wasson, J. H. (1999). How well does a single question about health predict the financial health of medicare managed care plans? Effective Clinical Practice, 2, 56–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. DeSalvo, K. B., Fan, V., McDonell, M., & Fihn, S. D. (2005). Predicting mortality and healthcare utilization with a single question. HSR, 40(4), 1234–1246.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wallace, E., Uijen, M. J., Clyne, B., Zarabzadeh, A., Keogh, C., Galvin, R., et al. (2016). Impact analysis studies of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 6, e009957. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009957.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    John H. Wasson

  2. 3 M Health Information Systems Inc, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Laura Soloway, L. Gordon Moore & Paul Labrec

  3. North Kingston Family Practice, North Kingstown, RI, 02852, USA

    Lynn Ho

Authors
  1. John H. Wasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Soloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Gordon Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Labrec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lynn Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. Wasson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wasson, J.H., Soloway, L., Moore, L.G. et al. Development of a care guidance index based on what matters to patients. Qual Life Res 27, 51–58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1573-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1573-x

Keywords

  • Patient-reported measures
  • Chronic condition management
  • Patient engagement
  • Risk models
  • Clinical prediction rules
  • Health confidence