Search

Background: Multimorbidity is common among general practice patients and increases a general practitioner's (GP's) workload. But the extent of multimorbidity may depend on its definition and whether a time delimiter is included in the definition or not. Aims: The aims of the study were (1) to compare practice prevalence rates yielded by different models of multimorbidity, (2) to determine how a time delimiter influences the prevalence rates and (3) to assess the effects of multimorbidity on the number of direct and indirect patient contacts as an indicator of doctors' workload. Methods: This retrospective observational study used electronic medical records from 142 German general practices, covering 13 years from 1994 to 2007. The four models of multimorbidity ranged from a simple definition, requiring only two diseases, to an advanced definition requiring at least three chronic conditions. We also included a time delimiter for the definition of multimorbidity. Descriptive statistics, such as means and correlation coefficients, were applied. Findings: The annual percentage of multimorbid primary care patients ranged between 84% (simple model) and 16% (advanced model) and between 74% and 13% if a time delimiter was included. Multimorbid patients had about twice as many contacts annually than the remainder. The number of contacts were different for each model, but the ratio remained similar. The number of contacts correlated moderately with patient age (r = 0.35). The correlation between age and multimorbidity increased from model to model up to 0.28 while the correlations between contacts and multimorbidity varied around 0.2 in all four models. Conclusion: Multimorbidity seems to be less prevalent in primary care practices than usually estimated if advanced definitions of multimorbidity and a temporal delimiter are applied. Although multimorbidity increases in any model a doctor's workload, it is especially the older person with multiple chronic diseases who is a challenge for the GP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increase in a patient's visits to doctors usually raises concerns and may be a 'red flag' for a patient's deterioration of health. The aim of this study was to analyze whether an increase of patient-physician contacts is a first sign of a malignancy in a patient's near future. Methods: This is a retrospective case-control study. From 153 German general practices' electronic patient records (EPR), cases with at least one new malignancy diagnosis and no-malignancy controls were matched for gender and age. We calculated (1) the number of contacts in the first quarter up to the sixth quarter before a malignancy diagnosis was made and (2) the inter-contact interval (ICI), i.e. the time lag between two consecutive patient-physician contacts measured in days. Differences between cases and controls were investigated in several analyses of variance, with group and time as main factors. Results: A total of 3,310 cases and 3,310 controls could be included. The number of contacts for cases in the six quarters before a malignancy diagnosis increased from 4.8 contacts (SD 4.3) to 5.5 contacts (SD 4.8). The number of contacts for controls increased only marginally from 4.3 contacts (SD 3.6) to 4.5 (SD 4.2). The factor 'group' (cases vs. controls) was highly significant in the analyses of variance, also 'time' and the interaction 'group * time'. The effect size, however, was very small (R² being less than 0.02), which is the equivalent for about one additional contact per quarter in cases directly before a newly made malignancy diagnosis. Conclusion: An increase in contact frequency is a call for GPs to become more attentive towards these patients. It may raise the suspicion of an impending serious disease but the increase is not so dramatic and unique that it can be interpreted a reliable sign of a malignant diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frequent attenders receive much attention in primary care research. Defining frequent attendance is crucial for an adequate view on this group of demanding patients. We aimed to develop a purely contact-based definition of "frequent attendance" and to apply it to real patients. Methods From electronic records of 123 general practices in Germany, patients' inter-contact intervals (ICI) between two consecutive doctor-patient-contacts were calculated in this retrospective observational study. ICI less than 7 days were labelled "frequent attendance", patients with 60% or more of such intervals "frequent attenders (new view)". In contrast, patients having at least 24 contacts per calendar year were considered "frequent attenders (traditional view)". Both groups were analysed in their diseases and demands, using multiple logistic regression. Results A total of 177,057 patients with at least 3 ICI in 1996 until 2006 yielded 4,408,033 ICI. One third were "short" ICI (less than 7 days), resulting in 19,759 (11.2%) frequent attenders (new). In contrast, 22,921 (12.9%) patients were frequent attenders (traditional). Compared to non-frequent attenders, frequent attenders (new) were more likely to have pneumonia (OR 1.66), stroke (OR 1.49), dementia (OR 1.46), or severe substance abuse (OR 1.44), also to need home visits or emergency attention. Frequent attenders (traditional) were more likely to have dementia (OR 2.76) or stroke (OR 2.06), and by far to need home visits (OR 5.43; all p < 0.001). Conclusions A new measure, the interval in days of two consecutive face-to-face contacts (ICI), widens our perspective on frequent attenders in general practice. In many cases, their consultation behaviour and need for medical services seem to follow "disease logic". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]