Rethinking health services around clusters of co-existing diseases: impact on integrated care for people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions
Beaney, T.; Clarke, J.; Downey, L.; Tzoulaki, I.; Woodcock, T.; Barahona, M.; Majeed, A.; Aylin, P.
Show abstract
BackgroundCare delivery in conventional health systems is structured around clinical anatomical specialties, often geared towards managing single conditions rather than people. As a result, people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions (MLTC) often need to see many different specialists to manage their health, resulting in fragmented care that is inefficient and costly. Certain Long-term Conditions (LTCs) frequently co-exist in identifiable clusters. Here, we examine the impact on the number of interactions with distinct healthcare services per person with MLTC if care was organised around common clusters of co-existing conditions, rather than anatomical specialties. Methods and findingsWe used a nationally representative sample of electronic health records from general practices in England. Patients aged [≥]18 years and registered on 1st January 2020 with MLTC (two or more of 212 LTCs) were included. Each LTC was assigned to one of fifteen systems representing the conventional specialty-based model of care and to one of fifteen clusters, derived from earlier work, representing a cluster-based model of care. We calculated the number of interactions with distinct services under each model, assuming a person has a hospital appointment for each of their conditions. 7,122,447 adults were included, with a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (39 - 67) years. Under the specialty-based model, patients would interact with a mean (standard deviation) of 3.91 (2.02) different services and under the hypothetical cluster-based model, would interact with 3.51 (1.76) different services, 10.1% lower than under the specialty-based model (p<0.001). Under the specialty-based model, 419,252 (5.9%) patients interacted with only one service, and under the cluster-based model, 594,641 (8.3%) interacted with only one service. ConclusionsHospital services organised around clusters of co-existing conditions might allow patients with MLTC to interact with fewer different services and so improve integrated care. Further work is needed to understand which specialties collaborating, and how, would have the greatest impact on enhancing person-centred care and health outcomes.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England 93%
- The Monash Learning Health System Maturity Matrix: Codesign of a Tool to Measure and Guide Improvement in Complex Health System Behaviour 92%
- Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 1: describing trends and variation in primary care clinical activity for 23.3 million patients in England during the first wave of COVID-19 93%
- Primary care transformation in Scotland: a comparison two cross-sectional national surveys of general practitioners’ views in 2018 and 2023 93%
- Changes in General Practice use and costs with COVID-19 and telehealth initiatives 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding the influence of leadership, organisation, and policy on delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 91%
- A novel methodology to measure waiting times for community-based specialist care in a public healthcare system 91%
- Progressivity of out-of-pocket costs under Australia’s universal health care system: a national linked data study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- An observational study of survival outcomes of people referred for ‘fast-track’ end-of-life care funding in a District General Hospital; too little too late? 94%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 92%
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predictors of adverse outcome in patients with suspected COVID-19 managed in a ‘virtual hospital’ setting: a cohort study 94%
- Trends in inequalities in avoidable hospitalisations across the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study of 23.5 million people in England 93%
- What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.