Background. Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. Objectives. Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. Methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. Results. The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly skewed distribution (skew −1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less skewed distribution (skew −0.634, kurtosis −0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). Conclusions. These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.

Multimorbidity, the coexistence of multiple health conditions, is a growing public health challenge. Research and intervention development are hampered by the lack of consensus regarding defining and measuring multimorbidity. The aim of this systematic review was to pool the findings of systematic reviews examining definitions and measures of multimorbidity. Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane were searched from database inception to February 2017. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts and extracted data from the included papers. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. Reviews were quality assessed. Of six reviews, two focussed on definitions and four on measures. Multimorbidity was commonly defined as the presence of multiple diseases or conditions, often with a cut-off of two or more. One review developed a holistic definition including biopsychosocial and somatic factors as well as disease. Reviews recommended using measures validated for the outcome of interest. Disease counts are an alternative if no validated measure exists. To enable comparison between studies and settings, researchers and practitioners should be explicit about their choice of definition and measure. Using a cut-off of two or more conditions as part of the definition is widely adopted. Measure selection should be based on tools validated for the outcome being considered. Where there is no validated measure, or where multiple outcomes or populations are being considered, disease counts are appropriate.

Care of patients with multimorbidity could be improved if new technology is used to bring together guidelines on individual conditions and tailor advice to each patient’s circumstances, say Bruce Guthrie and colleagues

Adults with intellectual disabilities have increased early mortality compared with the general population. However, their extent of multimorbidity (two or more additional conditions) compared with the general population is unknown, particularly with regards to physical ill-health, as are associations between comorbidities, neighbourhood deprivation, and age. We analysed primary health-care data on 1,424,378 adults registered with 314 representative Scottish practices. Data on intellectual disabilities, 32 physical, and six mental health conditions were extracted. We generated standardised prevalence rates by age-groups, gender, and neighbourhood deprivation, then calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) for adults with intellectual disabilities compared to those without, for the prevalence, and number of condition. Eight thousand fourteen (0.56 %) had intellectual disabilities, of whom only 31.8 % had no other conditions compared to 51.6 % without intellectual disabilities (OR 0.26, 95 % 0.25–0.27). The intellectual disabilities group were significantly more likely to have more conditions, with the biggest difference found for three conditions (10.9 % versus 6.8 %; OR 2.28, 95 % CI 2.10–2.46). Fourteen physical conditions were significantly more prevalent, and four cardiovascular conditions occurred less frequently, as did any cancers, and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Five of the six mental health conditions were significantly more prevalent. For the adults with intellectual disabilities, no gradient was seen in extent of multimorbidity with increasing neighbourhood deprivation; indeed findings were similar in the most affluent and most deprived areas. Co-morbidity increased with age but is highly prevalent at all ages, being similar at age 20–25 to 50–54 year olds in the general population. Multi-morbidity burden is greater, occurs at much earlier age, and the profile of health conditions differs, for adults with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population. There is no association with neighbourhood deprivation; people with intellectual disabilities need focussed services irrespective of where they live, and at a much earlier age than the general population. They require specific initiatives to reduce inequalities.

The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. National Institute for Health Research.