Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Long term condition morbidity in English general practice: a cross-sectional study using three composite morbidity measures

Authors: Charlotte Weston, Alexander Gilkes, Stevo Durbaba, Peter Schofield, Patrick White, Mark Ashworth

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The burden of morbidity represented by patients with long term conditions (LTCs) varies substantially between general practices. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of general practices with high morbidity burden.

Method

Retrospective cross-sectional study; general practices in England, 2014/15. Three composite morbidity measures (MMs) were constructed to quantify LTC morbidity at practice level: a count of LTCs derived from the 20 LTCs included in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) disease registers, expressed as ‘number of QOF LTCs per 100 registered patients’; the % of patients with one or more QOF LTCs; the % of patients with one or more of 15 broadly defined LTCs included in the GP Patient Survey (GPPS). Determinants of MM scores were analysed using multi-level regression models. Analysis was based on a national dataset of English general practices (n = 7779 practices); GPPS responses (n = 903,357); general practice characteristics (e.g. list size, list size per full time GP); patient demographic characteristics (age, deprivation status); secondary care utilisation (out-patient, emergency department, emergency admission rates).

Results

Mean MM scores (95% CIs) were: 57.7 (±22.3) QOF LTCs per 100 registered patients; 22.8% (±8.2) patients with a QOF LTC; 63.5% (±11.7) patients with a GPPS LTC. The proportion of elderly patients and social deprivation scores were the strongest predictors of each MM score; scores were largely independent of practice characteristics. MM scores were positive predictors of secondary care utilization and negative predictors’ access, continuity of care and overall satisfaction.

Conclusions

Wide variation in LTC morbidity burden was observed across English general practice. Variation was determined by demographic factors rather than practice characteristics. Higher rates of secondary care utilisation in practices with higher morbidity burden have implications for resource allocation and commissioning budgets; lower reported satisfaction in these practices suggests that practices may struggle with increased workload. There is a need for a readily available metric to define the burden of morbidity and multimorbidity in general practice.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fleming DM, Cross KW, Barley MA. Recent changes in the prevalence of diseases presenting for health care. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(517):589–95.PubMedPubMedCentral Fleming DM, Cross KW, Barley MA. Recent changes in the prevalence of diseases presenting for health care. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(517):589–95.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Salisbury C, et al. Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(582):e12–21.CrossRefPubMed Salisbury C, et al. Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(582):e12–21.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Huntley AL, et al. Measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden for use in primary care and community settings: a systematic review and guide. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(2):134–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Huntley AL, et al. Measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden for use in primary care and community settings: a systematic review and guide. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(2):134–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
go back to reference Schafer I, et al. The influence of age, gender and socio-economic status on multimorbidity patterns in primary care. First results from the multicare cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schafer I, et al. The influence of age, gender and socio-economic status on multimorbidity patterns in primary care. First results from the multicare cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Glynn LG, et al. The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care and its effect on health care utilization and cost. Fam Pract. 2011;28(5):516–23.CrossRefPubMed Glynn LG, et al. The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care and its effect on health care utilization and cost. Fam Pract. 2011;28(5):516–23.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Fan VS, et al. Functional status and patient satisfaction: a comparison of ischemic heart disease, obstructive lung disease, and diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):452–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fan VS, et al. Functional status and patient satisfaction: a comparison of ischemic heart disease, obstructive lung disease, and diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):452–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Paddison CA, et al. Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1081–92. Paddison CA, et al. Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1081–92.
13.
go back to reference Ipsos MORI. GP patient survey: surveys and reports. 2014. Ipsos MORI. GP patient survey: surveys and reports. 2014.
14.
go back to reference Paddison CA, et al. Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3), e006172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Paddison CA, et al. Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3), e006172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Mahomed R, et al. Understanding the process of patient satisfaction with nurse-led chronic disease management in general practice. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(11):2538–49.CrossRefPubMed Mahomed R, et al. Understanding the process of patient satisfaction with nurse-led chronic disease management in general practice. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(11):2538–49.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Barnett K, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37–43.CrossRefPubMed Barnett K, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37–43.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Department Of Health. Long term conditions compendium of information. 3rd ed. England: NHS; 2012. Department Of Health. Long term conditions compendium of information. 3rd ed. England: NHS; 2012.
18.
go back to reference Kinnersley P. Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting “same day” consultations in primary care. Br Med J. 2000;320:1043–8.CrossRef Kinnersley P. Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting “same day” consultations in primary care. Br Med J. 2000;320:1043–8.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cheraghi-Sohi S, et al. What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual ‘map’ of patient preferences. Health Expect. 2006;9(3):275–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cheraghi-Sohi S, et al. What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual ‘map’ of patient preferences. Health Expect. 2006;9(3):275–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Kearley K, et al. An exploration of the value of the personal doctor-patient relationship in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:712–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Kearley K, et al. An exploration of the value of the personal doctor-patient relationship in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:712–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Degani N. Impact of advanced (open) access scheduling on patients with chronic diseases: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2013;13(7):1–48. Degani N. Impact of advanced (open) access scheduling on patients with chronic diseases: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2013;13(7):1–48.
23.
go back to reference Bundy DG, et al. Open access in primary care: results of a north carolina pilot project. Pediatrics. 2005;116(1):82–7.CrossRefPubMed Bundy DG, et al. Open access in primary care: results of a north carolina pilot project. Pediatrics. 2005;116(1):82–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference O’Hare CD, Corlett J. The outcomes of open-access scheduling. Fam Pract Manag. 2004;11(2):35–8.PubMed O’Hare CD, Corlett J. The outcomes of open-access scheduling. Fam Pract Manag. 2004;11(2):35–8.PubMed
25.
go back to reference Harrison C, et al. Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7), e004694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Harrison C, et al. Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7), e004694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Ipsos MORI. Weighting investigation for year 2011–2012 of GPPS. 2011. Ipsos MORI. Weighting investigation for year 2011–2012 of GPPS. 2011.
Metadata
Title
Long term condition morbidity in English general practice: a cross-sectional study using three composite morbidity measures
Authors
Charlotte Weston
Alexander Gilkes
Stevo Durbaba
Peter Schofield
Patrick White
Mark Ashworth
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0563-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Primary Care 1/2016 Go to the issue