Providing health care for older adults with multimorbidity is often complex, challenging, and prone to fragmentation. Although clinical decision making should take into account treatment interactions, individual burden, and resources, current approaches to assessing quality of care mostly rely on indicators for single conditions. The aim of this project was to develop a set of generic quality indicators for the management of patients aged 65 and older with multimorbidity that can be used in both health care research and clinical practice. Based on the findings of a systematic literature review and eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and their family members, we developed candidate indicators. Identified aspects of quality were mapped to core domains of health care to obtain a guiding framework for quality-of-care assessment. Using nominal group technique, indicators were rated by a multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 23) following standardized criteria. We derived 47 candidate quality indicators from the literature and 4 additional indicators from the results of the focus groups. The expert panel selected a set of 25 indicators, which can be assigned to the levels of patient factors, patient–provider communication, and context and organizational structures of the conceptual framework. We developed a comprehensive indicator set for the management of multimorbidity that can help to highlight areas with potential for improving the quality of care and support application of multimorbidity guidelines. Furthermore, this study may serve as a blueprint for participatory designs in the development of quality indicators.

Background: Patients with multiple long-term conditions often face a variety of challenges arising from the requirements of their health care. Knowledge of perceived treatment burden is crucial for optimizing treatment. In this study, we aimed to create a German version of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and to evaluate its validity.Methods: The steps to translate the MTBQ included forward/back translation, cognitive interviews (n = 6) and a pilot test (n = 7). Psychometric properties of the scale were assessed in a cross-sectional survey with primary care patients aged 65 and older with at least 3 long-term conditions (n = 344). We examined the distribution of responses, dimensionality, internal reliability and construct validity.Results: Cognitive interviewing and piloting led to minor modifications and showed overall good face validity and acceptability. As expected, we observed a positively skewed response distribution for all items. Reliability was acceptable with McDonald’s omega = 0.71. Factor analysis suggested one common factor while model fit indices were inconclusive. Predefined hypotheses regarding the construct validity were supported by negative associations between treatment burden and health-related quality of life, self-rated health, social support, patient activation and medication adherence, and positive associations between treatment burden and number of comorbidities. Treatment burden was found to be higher in female participants (Mdn₁ = 6.82,Mdn₂ = 4.55;U = 11,729,p = 0.001) and participants with mental health diagnoses (Mdn₁ = 9.10,Mdn₂ = 4.55;U = 3172,p = 0.024).Conclusions: The German MTBQ exhibited good psychometric properties and can be used to assess the perceived treatment burden of patients with multimorbidity.

The management of the long-term sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, known as post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS), continues to challenge the medical community, largely owing to a significant gap in the understanding of its aetiology, diagnosis and effective treatment. To examine general practitioners’ (GPs) experiences of caring for patients with PCS and to identify unmet care needs and opportunities for improvement. This study follows a qualitative design, using in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs (N = 31) from across Germany. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis. GPs reported that they were often the first point of contact for patients with persistent symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection, with symptoms typically resolving within weeks. While ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 is perceived to be more common, the relevance of PCS to GP practices is considerable given its severe impact on patients’ functioning, social participation and the substantial time required for patient care. GPs coordinate diagnosis and treatment but face challenges because of the unclear definition of PCS and difficulties in attributing symptoms, resulting in a cautious approach to ICD-10 coding. Interviewees highlight lengthy diagnostic pathways and barriers to accessing specialist care. The findings confirm the high functional limitations and psychosocial burden of PCS on patients, and the central role of GPs in their care. The study suggests a need for further research and health policy measures to support GPs in navigating diagnostic uncertainty, interprofessional communication and the limited evidence on effective treatments.

Background: Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia are underrepresented in specialist palliative home care (SPHC). However, the complexity of their conditions requires collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and SPHC teams and timely integration into SPHC to effectively meet their needs. Objective: To facilitate joint palliative care planning and the timely transfer of patients with advanced chronic non-malignant conditions to SPHC. Methods: A two-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomised controlled trial. 49 GP practices in northern Germany were randomised using web-based block randomisation. We included patients with advanced CHF, COPD and/or dementia. The KOPAL intervention consisted of a SPHC nurse–patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference between SPHC team and GP. The primary outcome was the number of hospital admissions 48 weeks after baseline. Secondary analyses examined the effects on health-related quality of life and self-rated health status, as measured by the EuroQol 5D scale. Results: A total of 172 patients were included in the analyses. 80.4% of GP practices had worked with SHPC before, most of them exclusively for cancer patients. At baseline, patients reported a mean EQ-VAS of 48.4, a mean quality of life index (EQ-5D-5L) of 0.63 and an average of 0.80 hospital admissions in the previous year. The intervention did not significantly reduce hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.79, 95%CI: [0.49, 1.26], P = 0.31) or the number of days spent in hospital (incidence rate ratio = 0.65, 95%CI: [0.28, 1.49], P = 0.29). There was also no significant effect on quality of life (∆ = −0.02, 95%CI: [−0.09, 0.05], P = 0.53) or self-rated health (∆ = −2.48, 95%CI: [−9.95, 4.99], P = 0.51). Conclusions: The study did not show the hypothesised effect on hospitalisations and health-related quality of life. Future research should focus on refining this approach, with particular emphasis on optimising the timing of case conferences and implementing discussed changes to treatment plans, to improve collaboration between GPs and SPHC teams.

Background: Older adults with multimorbidity represent a growing segment of the population. Metrics to assess quality, safety and effectiveness of care can support policy makers and healthcare providers in addressing patient needs. However, there is a lack of valid measures of quality of care for this population. In the MULTIqual project, 24 general practitioner (GP)-reported and 14 patient-reported quality indicators for the healthcare of older adults with multimorbidity were developed in Germany in a systematic approach. This study aimed to select, validate and pilot core sets of these indicators. Methods: In a cross-sectional observational study, we collected data in general practices (n = 35) and patients aged 65 years and older with three or more chronic conditions (n = 346). One-dimensional core sets for both perspectives were selected by stepwise backward selection based on corrected item-total correlations. We established structural validity, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement for the selected indicators. Multilevel multivariable linear regression models adjusted for random effects at practice level were calculated to examine construct validity. Results: Twelve GP-reported and seven patient-reported indicators were selected, with item-total correlations ranging from 0.332 to 0.576. Fulfilment rates ranged from 24.6 to 89.0%. Between 0 and 12.7% of the values were missing. Seventeen indicators had agreement rates between patients and professionals of 24.1% to 75.9% and one had 90.7% positive and 5.1% negative agreement. Patients who were born abroad (− 1.04, 95% CI = − 2.00/ − 0.08, p = 0.033) and had higher health-related quality of life (− 1.37, 95% CI = − 2.39/ − 0.36, p = 0.008), fewer contacts with their GP (0.14, 95% CI = 0.04/0.23, p = 0.007) and lower willingness to use their GPs as coordinators of their care (0.13, 95% CI = 0.06/0.20, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower GP-reported healthcare quality scores. Patients who had fewer GP contacts (0.12, 95% CI = 0.04/0.20, p = 0.002) and were less willing to use their GP to coordinate their care (0.16, 95% CI = 0.10/0.21, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower patient-reported healthcare quality scores. Conclusions: The quality indicator core sets are the first brief measurement tools specifically designed to assess quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. The indicators can facilitate implementation of treatment standards and offer viable alternatives to the current practice of combining disease-related metrics with poor applicability to patients with multimorbidity.

Objectives This study aimed to explore the association between patient activation and patients’ experience of care among an elderly multimorbid population in Germany. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care practices in two German settings. Participants 346 patients with 3 or more chronic conditions aged 65 years and over from 36 primary care practices. Outcome measures Patient activation was measured with the patient activation measure (PAM). To assess patient experiences with primary care, a set of questions concerning domains of primary care were included. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to examine which domains of care were associated with patient activation. Results Out of 1243 invited patients, a total of 346 took part in the study (participation rate 27.8 %). Mean PAM score was 76.1. Across all patients, 3.8% achieved PAM level 1, 7.5% level 2, 27.2% level 3% and 60.7% level 4. PAM scores suggest a highly activated patient group. In the regression analysis, three out ten domains of patients’ experiences showed an association with patient activation. The domains ‘being involved in decision as much as desired’ (B=−8.56, p=0.012) and ‘receiving a self-management plan’ (B=6.51, p=0.051) were associated with higher patient activation scores. Patients with an up-to-date medication plan had lower patient activation scores (B=−12.01, p=0.041). Conclusion Specific domains of primary care were found to be associated with patient activation. To enhance patient activation, primary care physicians may increase involvement of patients in decisions. Future research should examine the causality of these associations. Trial registration number DRKS00015718.