Concordancia entre sistemas de estratificación e identificación de pacientes crónicos complejos en Atención Primaria

M. Sánchez Mollá , I. Candela García , F.J. Gómez-Romero , D. Orozco Beltrán , M. Ollero Baturone
{"title":"Concordancia entre sistemas de estratificación e identificación de pacientes crónicos complejos en Atención Primaria","authors":"M. Sánchez Mollá ,&nbsp;I. Candela García ,&nbsp;F.J. Gómez-Romero ,&nbsp;D. Orozco Beltrán ,&nbsp;M. Ollero Baturone","doi":"10.1016/j.cali.2016.07.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine the prevalence of patients with multiple chronic diseases in Primary Care using the multiple morbidity criteria and Clinical Risk Groups, and the agreement in identifying high-risk patients that require case management with both methods.</p></div><div><h3>Material and method</h3><p>A cross-sectional study was conducted on 240 patients, selected by random sampling of 16 care quotas from two Primary Health Care centres of a health area. Informed consent was obtained to access their electronic medical records for the study, and a record was made of age, sex, health status of Clinical Risk Groups, severity, multiple morbidity criteria, and Charlson index by physicians during clinical practice. Three patients were excluded due to incomplete data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The prevalence of patients with multiple chronic diseases following the criteria of the Ministry of Health among users was 4.11 (95% CI; 2.13-7.30). The frequency of patients with high risk Clinical Risk Groups (G3) in the chronicity strategy of Valencian Community was 7.59 (95% CI; 4.70-11.70), which includes patients with health status 6 and complexity level 5-6, and health status 7, 8, and 9. Agreement between the two classifications was low, with a kappa index 0.17 (95% CI; 0-0.5)</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The prevalence did not differ significantly from that expected, and the agreement between the two stratifications was very weak, not selecting the same patients for highly complex case management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101101,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","volume":"32 1","pages":"Pages 10-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cali.2016.07.006","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1134282X16301294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objective

To determine the prevalence of patients with multiple chronic diseases in Primary Care using the multiple morbidity criteria and Clinical Risk Groups, and the agreement in identifying high-risk patients that require case management with both methods.

Material and method

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 240 patients, selected by random sampling of 16 care quotas from two Primary Health Care centres of a health area. Informed consent was obtained to access their electronic medical records for the study, and a record was made of age, sex, health status of Clinical Risk Groups, severity, multiple morbidity criteria, and Charlson index by physicians during clinical practice. Three patients were excluded due to incomplete data.

Results

The prevalence of patients with multiple chronic diseases following the criteria of the Ministry of Health among users was 4.11 (95% CI; 2.13-7.30). The frequency of patients with high risk Clinical Risk Groups (G3) in the chronicity strategy of Valencian Community was 7.59 (95% CI; 4.70-11.70), which includes patients with health status 6 and complexity level 5-6, and health status 7, 8, and 9. Agreement between the two classifications was low, with a kappa index 0.17 (95% CI; 0-0.5)

Conclusions

The prevalence did not differ significantly from that expected, and the agreement between the two stratifications was very weak, not selecting the same patients for highly complex case management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级保健中复杂慢性患者分层与识别系统的一致性
目的采用多发病标准和临床风险分组确定基层医疗中多种慢性疾病患者的患病率,并分析两种方法在确定需要病例管理的高危患者方面的一致性。材料和方法对240名患者进行了横断面研究,这些患者是通过从一个卫生地区的两个初级卫生保健中心的16个护理配额随机抽样选出的。在获得知情同意的情况下访问其电子病历,并由医生在临床实践中记录其年龄、性别、临床风险组健康状况、严重程度、多重发病标准和Charlson指数。3例患者因资料不完整而被排除。结果用户中符合卫生部标准的多种慢性疾病患者患病率为4.11 (95% CI;2.13 - -7.30)。瓦伦西亚社区慢性策略中高危临床风险组(G3)患者的频率为7.59 (95% CI;4.70-11.70),包括健康状况为6、复杂程度为5-6、健康状况为7、8和9的患者。两种分类之间的一致性较低,kappa指数为0.17 (95% CI;0-0.5)结论患病率与预期没有显著差异,两个分层之间的一致性非常弱,没有选择相同的患者进行高度复杂的病例管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Del papel a las nuevas tecnologías en la comunicación con nuestros pacientes Impacto de un programa de gestión de riesgo en la tasa de úlceras por presión La enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC): ¿esa gran conocida? Reflexiones sobre cómo mejorar la calidad diagnóstica El capital social como determinante de salud pública Efectividad de la evaluación de historias clínicas informatizadas en un hospital universitario
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1