Lillian Min1, Eve A Kerr, Caroline S Blaum, David Reuben, Christine Cigolle, Neil Wenger. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Geriatrics Research, Education and Clinical Care Center, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether greater burden of geriatric conditions would have contrasting effects on quality of care (QOC) than nongeriatric, general medical conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observation over 1 year of ambulatory care. SETTING: The Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders-2 study. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults prospectively screened for falls, incontinence, and dementia (N = 644). MEASUREMENTS: Participant-level QOC in absolute percentage points calculated using 65 ambulatory care care-process quality indicators (QIs) for 13 general medical and geriatric conditions (#QIs provided/#QIs eligible). Secondary outcomes were geriatric QOC (a subset of 38 geriatric care QIs) and medical QOC (the 27 remaining nongeriatric QIs). Exposure variables were number of six medical conditions (medical comorbidity) and six geriatric conditions (geriatric comorbidity), controlling for age, sex, number of primary care visits, and site. RESULTS: Medical and geriatric comorbidity were unrelated to each other (correlation coefficient = 0.04, P = .27) yet had opposite effects on QOC. Each additional medical condition was associated with a 3.2-percentage point (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.3-4.2 percentage point) increment in QOC, and each additional geriatric condition was associated with 4.9-percentage point (95% CI = 3.5-6.5 percentage point) decrement in QOC. Participants with greater geriatric comorbidity received poorer medical and geriatric QOC. CONCLUSION: Greater burden of geriatric conditions, or geriatric multimorbidity, is associated with poorer QOC. Geriatric multimorbidity should be targeted for better care using a comprehensive approach.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether greater burden of geriatric conditions would have contrasting effects on quality of care (QOC) than nongeriatric, general medical conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observation over 1 year of ambulatory care. SETTING: The Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders-2 study. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults prospectively screened for falls, incontinence, and dementia (N = 644). MEASUREMENTS: Participant-level QOC in absolute percentage points calculated using 65 ambulatory care care-process quality indicators (QIs) for 13 general medical and geriatric conditions (#QIs provided/#QIs eligible). Secondary outcomes were geriatric QOC (a subset of 38 geriatric care QIs) and medical QOC (the 27 remaining nongeriatric QIs). Exposure variables were number of six medical conditions (medical comorbidity) and six geriatric conditions (geriatric comorbidity), controlling for age, sex, number of primary care visits, and site. RESULTS: Medical and geriatric comorbidity were unrelated to each other (correlation coefficient = 0.04, P = .27) yet had opposite effects on QOC. Each additional medical condition was associated with a 3.2-percentage point (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.3-4.2 percentage point) increment in QOC, and each additional geriatric condition was associated with 4.9-percentage point (95% CI = 3.5-6.5 percentage point) decrement in QOC. Participants with greater geriatric comorbidity received poorer medical and geriatric QOC. CONCLUSION: Greater burden of geriatric conditions, or geriatric multimorbidity, is associated with poorer QOC. Geriatric multimorbidity should be targeted for better care using a comprehensive approach.
Authors: Neil S Wenger; Carol P Roth; Paul G Shekelle; Roy T Young; David H Solomon; Caren J Kamberg; John T Chang; Rachel Louie; Takahiro Higashi; Catherine H MacLean; John Adams; Lillian C Min; Kurt Ransohoff; Marc Hoffing; David B Reuben Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Neil S Wenger; David H Solomon; Carol P Roth; Catherine H MacLean; Debra Saliba; Caren J Kamberg; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Roy T Young; Elizabeth M Sloss; Rachel Louie; John Adams; John T Chang; Patricia J Venus; John F Schnelle; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-11-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Christopher S Saigal; Lynn Stothers; David H Thom; Larissa V Rodríguez; Mark S Litwin Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lillian C Min; Neil S Wenger; Constance Fung; John T Chang; David A Ganz; Takahiro Higashi; Caren J Kamberg; Catherine H MacLean; Carol P Roth; David H Solomon; Roy T Young; David B Reuben Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Eve A Kerr; Michele Heisler; Sarah L Krein; Mohammed Kabeto; Kenneth M Langa; David Weir; John D Piette Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gregory C Pope; John Kautter; Randall P Ellis; Arlene S Ash; John Z Ayanian; Lisa I Lezzoni; Melvin J Ingber; Jesse M Levy; John Robst Journal: Health Care Financ Rev Date: 2004
Authors: Camille P Vaughan; Alayne D Markland; Phillip P Smith; Kathryn L Burgio; George A Kuchel Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lillian Min; Christine T Cigolle; Steven J Bernstein; Kathleen Ward; Tisha L Moore; Jinkyung Ha; Caroline S Blaum Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Lena M Chen; Arnold M Epstein; E John Orav; Clara E Filice; Lok Wong Samson; Karen E Joynt Maddox Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maria Panagioti; Jonathan Stokes; Aneez Esmail; Peter Coventry; Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi; Rahul Alam; Peter Bower Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joanna Collerton; Carol Jagger; Mohammad E Yadegarfar; Karen Davies; Stuart G Parker; Louise Robinson; Thomas B L Kirkwood Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 3.411