Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship Between Multimorbidity and Patients’ Ratings of Communication

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The growing interest in pay-for-performance and other quality improvement programs has generated concerns about potential performance measurement penalties for providers who care for more complex patients, such as patients with more chronic conditions. Few data are available on how multimorbidity affects common performance metrics.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between multimorbidity and patients’ ratings of communication, a common performance metric.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study

SETTING

Nationally representative sample of U.S. residents

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 15,709 noninstitutionalized adults living in the United States participated in a telephone interview.

MEASUREMENTS

We used 2 different measures of multimorbidity: 1) “individual conditions” approach disregards similarities/concordance among chronic conditions and 2) “condition-groups” approach considers similarities/concordance among conditions. We used a composite measure of patients’ ratings of patient–physician communication.

RESULTS

A higher number of individual conditions is associated with lower ratings of communication, although the magnitude of the relationship is small (adjusted average communication scores: 0 conditions, 12.20; 1–2 conditions, 12.06; 3+ conditions, 11.90; scale range 5 = worst, 15 = best). This relationship remains statistically significant when concordant relationships among conditions are considered (0 condition groups 12.19; 1–2 condition groups 12.03; 3+ condition groups 11.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In our nationally representative sample, patients with more chronic conditions gave their doctors modestly lower patient–doctor communication scores than their healthier counterparts. Accounting for concordance among conditions does not widen the difference in communication scores. Concerns about performance measurement penalty related to patient complexity cannot be entirely addressed by adjusting for multimorbidity. Future studies should focus on other aspects of clinical complexity (e.g., severity, specific combinations of conditions).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS Surveys and Tools. Available at https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/default.asp. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  2. Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, et al. The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care. 1998;36:728.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Safran DG, Karp M, Coltin K, et al. Measuring patients’ experiences with individual primary care physicians. Results of a statewide demonstration project. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fung CH, Elliott MN, Hays RD, et al. Patients’ preferences for technical versus interpersonal quality when selecting a primary care physician. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Laine C, Davidoff F, Lewis CE, et al. Important elements of outpatient care: a comparison of patients’ and physicians’ opinions. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:640–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pacific Business Group on Health. Healthscope. Available at http://www.healthscope.org/default.asp. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  7. Jackson C. California HMO: Doctor bonuses based on patient satisfaction. AMNews Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2001/07/30/bil10730.htm. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  8. Ryan R. Primary Care Redesign. The Permanente Journal. Available at http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/fall97pj/redesign.html. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  9. Werner RM, Greenfield S, Fung CH, Turner BJ. Measuring Quality of Care in Complex Patients: Findings from a Conference Organized by the Society of General Internal Medicine. Available at http://www.sgim.org/PDF/SGIMReports/MeasuringQualityCareFinalReportOct42006.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  10. Werner RM, Greenfield S, Fung C, Turner BJ. Measuring quality of care in patients with multiple clinical conditions: summary of a conference conducted by the Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1206–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yancik R, Ershler W, Satariano W, Hazzard W, Cohen HJ, Ferrucci L. Report of the national institute on aging task force on comorbidity. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:275–80.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Lapointe L. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:223–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:2269–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Parchman ML, Noel PH, Lee S. Primary care attributes, health care system hassles, and chronic illness. Med Care. 2005;43:1123–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tai-Seale M, McGuire TG, Zhang W. Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1871–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 2000–2001:[United States] [Computer file]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Ann Arbor: Center for Studying Health System Change; 2003.

  17. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:665–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:1509–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/default.asp. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  21. Calculate Your Body Mass Index. Available at http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  22. Fiellin DA, Reid MC, O’Connor PG. Outpatient management of patients with alcohol problems. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:815–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Available at http://www.hosonline.org/surveys/hos/download/HOS_DUG_PUF_CVIIB.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2008.

  24. Katz JN, Chang LC, Sangha O, Fossel AH, Bates DW. Can comorbidity be measured by questionnaire rather than medical record review? Med Care. 1996;34:73–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Piette JD, Kerr EA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:725–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schellevis FG, van der Velden J, van de Lisdonk E, van Eijk JT, van Weel C. Comorbidity of chronic diseases in general practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:469–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Roos S, Knottnerus JA. Problems in determining occurrence rates of multimorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Landon BE, Zaslavsky AM, Bernard SL, Cioffi MJ, Cleary PD. Comparison of performance of traditional Medicare vs Medicare managed care. JAMA. 2004;291:1744–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hargraves JL, Wilson IB, Zaslavsky A, et al. Adjusting for patient characteristics when analyzing reports from patients about hospital care. Med Care. 2001;39:635–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Morales LS, Elliott MN, Weech-Maldonado R, Spritzer KL, Hays RD. Differences in CAHPS adult survey reports and ratings by race and ethnicity: an analysis of the National CAHPS benchmarking data 1.0. Health Serv Res. 2001;36:595–617.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Graubard B, Korn E. Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics. 55:652–9.

  32. Werner RM, Asch DA. Clinical concerns about clinical performance measurement. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:159–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Donabedian A. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring: The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Min LC, Wenger NS, Fung C, et al. Multimorbidity is associated with better quality of care among vulnerable elders. Med Care. 2007;45:480–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Higashi T, Wenger NS, Adams J, et al. Patients with more medical conditions receive better quality care: analysis of quality data from three large surveys. New Engl J Med. 2007;356:2496–504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Noel PH, Chris Frueh B, Larme AC, et al. Collaborative care needs and preferences of primary care patients with multimorbidity. Health Expect. 2005;8:54–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nutting PA, Baier M, Werner JJ, Cutter G, Conry C, Stewart L. Competing demands in the office visit: what influences mammography recommendations? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14:352.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Nutting PA, Rost K, Smith J, Werner JJ, Elliot C. Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1059.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Street RL Jr. Communication in medical encounters: an ecological perspective. In: Thompson TL, Dorsey AM, Miller KI, Parrott R, eds. Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC, Langa D, Flocke SA. Trade-offs in high-volume primary care practice. J Fam Pract. 1998;46:397–402.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Damiano P, Elliott M, Tyler MC, Hays RD. Differential use of the CAHPS 0–10 global rating scale by Medicaid and commercial populations. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology. 2004;5:193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Safran DG, Taira DA, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Tarlov AR. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J Fam Pract. 1998;47:213.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Burack JH, Impellizzeri P, Homel P, Cunningham JN Jr. Public reporting of surgical mortality: a survey of New York State cardiothoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:1195–1200. discussion 201–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr., Racz M, Shields E, Chassin MR. Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1994;271:761–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Street RL Jr., Gordon HS, Ward MM, Krupat E, Kravitz RL. Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others. Med Care. 2005;43:960–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Comorbidity: From Bedside to Bench. Summary of the NIA/AGS R13 Conference. Available at www.americangeriatrics.org/research/confseries/CombinedfilesAGSComorbidityPresentation.ppt. Accessed March 12, 2008.

Download references

Acknowledgment

We are indebted to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for their support; to Paul Ginsburg at the Center for Studying Health System Change for his support of this collaboration; to Richard Strauss at Mathematica Policy Research for developing systems for passing the initial sample from the Community Tracking Study household survey to RAND for this study; to RAND’s Survey Research Group (Josephine Levy and Laural Hill) and the telephone interviewers for recruiting participants; to Liisa Hiatt for serving as the project manager; to Allen Fremont for his role in developing the survey instrument and providing comments on an earlier version of the paper; and to Paul Shekelle for providing suggestions on the manuscript. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which funded the study, did not have any role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of our study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This manuscript was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Zynx Health, the RAND Corporation, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Findings were presented at the 2007 AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting (June 3–5, 2007, Orlando, Florida).

Conflict of Interests

Constance Fung is an employee of Zynx Health, Incorporated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zynx Health, Incorporated, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Constance H. Fung MD, MSHS

  2. RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Claude M. Setodji PhD, Fuan-Yue Kung MS, Joan Keesey BA, Steven M. Asch MD, MPH, John Adams PhD & Elizabeth A. McGlynn PhD

  3. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Steven M. Asch MD, MPH

  4. Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Constance H. Fung MD, MSHS

Authors
  1. Constance H. Fung MD, MSHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claude M. Setodji PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fuan-Yue Kung MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joan Keesey BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven M. Asch MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Adams PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elizabeth A. McGlynn PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constance H. Fung MD, MSHS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fung, C.H., Setodji, C.M., Kung, FY. et al. The Relationship Between Multimorbidity and Patients’ Ratings of Communication. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 788–793 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0602-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0602-4

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation