Skip to main content

Validation of patient- and GP-reported core sets of quality indicators for older adults with multimorbidity in primary care: results of the cross-sectional observational MULTIqual validation study

Abstract

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.

Peer Review reports

Background

Older adults with multimorbidity represent a growing segment of the population [1, 2]. Studies suggest that between 50 and 62% of patients aged 65 years and older are affected by multimorbidity, even if a conservative definition of multimorbidity such as the presence of three or more chronic health conditions is used [3, 4]. Patients with multimorbidity are at greater risk of adverse health outcomes, including poor quality of life and functional limitations, and use more services of the healthcare system [5,6,7,8]. They are often faced with complex medication and self-management regimens to manage their multiple health problems [9, 10]. Failure to coordinate care and prioritise treatment goals in line with patient preferences might lead to burdensome and fragmented care [11, 12].

Metrics to assess the quality, safety and effectiveness of care could help policy makers and healthcare providers to respond to the needs of this growing population [13]. However, valid measures for the quality of care for patients with multimorbidity are lacking [14, 15]. Therefore, there is a need to define and operationalise, e.g. through quality indicators, elements of high-quality care for multimorbidity [15]. Quality indicators are metrics referring to structures, outcomes and processes [16, 17]. They are used for quality assurance and monitoring as well as for the empirical evaluation of quality improvement efforts [18]. The call for empirically validated quality indicators specific to multimorbidity is becoming more and more frequent in the scientific literature [13, 15, 19, 20], but validation studies remain scarce [21, 22].

The MULTIqual project aims to develop and validate quality indicators for the primary care of older adults with multimorbidity in Germany. In a multi-step process, 51 candidate indicators had been derived from a systematic literature review and focus groups with patients and their family members. Subsequently, a multidisciplinary expert panel had rated these indicators in the dimensions significance, strength of evidence, possibility to influence the indicator manifestation and clarity of definition. Using nominal group technique, the expert panel then selected a set of 24 quality indicators from general practitioner (GP) perspective and 14 quality indicators from patient perspective and defined a conceptual framework that mapped the indicators to quality dimensions [23, 24].

This study constitutes the final stage of MULTIqual, in which core sets of quality indicators were selected, validated and piloted. The aims of this study were therefore (1) to select patient- and GP-reported core sets of quality indicators that coherently represent the quality dimensions of primary care for patients with multimorbidity; (2) to examine the structural validity, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement of the selected indicators and (3) to assess the construct validity of the resulting quality scores.

A priori, we expected that all of the quality dimensions identified by expert consensus would be associated with each other and could therefore be represented by one-dimensional core sets of feasible quality indicators. We also hypothesised that the quality scores would be associated with socio-demographic data, health condition, intensity of treatment, patient satisfaction and the patients’ willingness to use GPs as coordinators of their treatment.

Methods

Study design and recruitment of participants

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study based on standardised personal interviews with GPs and their patients. Patients were recruited from 35 cooperating GP practices in the cities of Hamburg and Heidelberg and their surrounding areas. The GPs were asked to compile a list of all patients in their practice who met the inclusion criteria. Patients were included if (1) they were aged 65 years or older, and (2) they had at least one consultation in the last completed quarter (i.e. 3-month accounting period) prior to the time of recruitment. From this list, patients were then randomly selected and checked for exclusion criteria until 30 eligible individuals were identified. In seven of the practices, this process was repeated to recruit additional patients.

In our study, multimorbidity was defined by the presence of three or more diseases which are (1) common, (2) chronic, (3) frequently co-occurring with other diseases and (4) potentially affecting subjective health. We operationalised this definition by chronic forms of the diseases anaemia, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerosis/peripheral arterial occlusive disease, cancer, chronic ischaemic heart disease, chronic low back pain, depression, diabetes mellitus, vertigo, heart failure, osteoarthritis, neuropathy, obesity, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis/chronic polyarthritis and urinary incontinence.

Patients were excluded if (1) they did not meet the criterion for multimorbidity described above; (2) they had been a patient of the practice for less than 12 months or were being treated on behalf of other GPs, e.g. if their practice was currently closed; (3) participation was not recommended for patient safety reasons (according to the GP), e.g. in case of poor health; (4) they lacked capacity to consent; (5) their life expectancy was less than 3 months (according to their GP); (6) they lived in a nursing home; (7) their German language skills were insufficient to participate in the study (according to their GP); (8) they had a severe uncompensated hearing loss and (9) they were participating in other medical studies at the time of recruitment.

Eligible patients received a letter and information material from their GP inviting them to participate in our study. If they were interested, they sent a response letter to the respective study centre. Project staff then contacted the interested patients, explained the study procedure and scheduled an appointment to obtain informed consent and conduct the interview. Recruitment and data collection took place between April 2019 and June 2020.

Data set

In standardised in-person and telephone interviews, GPs provided information on their age, sex, professional qualifications and experience, and the size and type of their practice. For participating patients from their practice, GPs provided information on diagnoses and course of treatment in order to calculate 24 quality indicators. In the GP interviews, we also documented whether the patients had participated in disease management programmes (DMPs). DMPs are structured programmes for the long-term outpatient management of chronic diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and breast cancer. They involve managed treatment coordinated by the GP, with regular consultations and a focus on patient education and self-management [25, 26].

Patients were visited at home or in their GP practice and were interviewed face-to-face using standardised questionnaires. The questionnaires collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, self-rated health status and health-related quality of life [27], healthcare utilisation, patient satisfaction and the degree of the patients’ commitment to their GP as coordinator of care [28]. Additionally, to calculate 14 quality indicators, patients reported data on the treatment and its outcomes. The data collection and calculation of the indicators are described in Additional file 1.

The patients’ sociodemographic data included age, sex, education level, their living situation and migration background. The education level was based on their general and vocational education and categorised into three levels according to the Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations (CASMIN) classification [29], i.e. (1) uncompleted, general elementary or basic vocational education; (2) secondary school certificate or A-level equivalent and (3) tertiary education. Migration background was assessed by the country of birth of the patients and their parents and coded in three categories, i.e. (1) patient and both parents born in Germany; (2) patient born in Germany and at least one parent born abroad and (3) patient born abroad.

The patients’ self-rated health status was rated using the EuroQoL visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) with values between 0 (worst health status) and 100 (best possible health status). We also measured health-related quality of life using the five-level version of the EuroQol Five-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D-5L). This questionnaire includes the domains mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression [27]. We computed the EQ-5D-5L index score based on the German value set. This gives a value of 1.000 for full health, which is reduced by up to five subtractions between − 0.026 and − 0.612 depending on the severity of limitations in each of the five domains [30]. In addition, we calculated a morbidity score comprising the number of permanent diagnoses documented in the GP practice.

Utilisation of primary care was assessed through the number of the patients’ contacts with their GP in the previous 3 months. Patient satisfaction was operationalised by asking if patients would recommend their GP to other patients with chronic conditions, which was rated on a four-point Likert scale (‘definitely yes’, ‘rather yes’, ‘rather no’ and ‘definitely no’) and dichotomised for the analyses (‘yes’ vs. ‘no’).

The patients’ willingness to use the GP as coordinator of their treatment was collected using the Questionnaire on Intensity of the Commitment to the GP (‘Fragebogen zur Intensität der Hausarztbindung (F-HaBi)’). The F-HaBi consists of six items rated on a five-point Likert scale and produces a summary score ranging from 0 to 24 points. Higher scores indicate that the patients are more likely to recognise and use the GP as coordinator of their care. Lower scores indicate that the patients prefer to navigate the healthcare system independently [28].

Statistical analyses

Selecting the core sets

Descriptive data were reported as percentages or medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). For both, GP- and patient-reported indicators, a separate summary score was calculated by counting fulfilled indicators at the patient level. In order to obtain a conservative estimate of the quality of care for each patient, we assumed non-fulfilment in case of missing values.

In order to calculate valid summary scores, it was necessary to obtain a one dimensional property of the underlying indicator sets. For each, the GP perspective and the patient perspective, a separate core set of quality indicators was selected by stepwise backward selection based on the corrected item-total correlation of each item [31, 32]. The item-total correlations were calculated by Pearson correlations between the fulfilment status of quality indicators and the Part-Whole-corrected summary score. In each step, the indicator with the lowest item-total correlation among the remaining indicators was excluded. The selection process was continued until all indicators in the remaining indicator set had an item-total correlation of at least r = 0.300 [33,34,35]. We used our measurement framework [23] as a point of reference to assess whether the key aspects of quality were maintained at the different target levels despite the reduction of items.

Assessing the properties of the selected indicators

The selected quality indicators were examined for structural validity, internal consistency, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement. Structural validity—as indicated by the one-dimensional property of the core sets of quality indicators—was assessed by item-total correlations and exploratory factor analysis. Factors were defined by the principal factors method based on a Pearson correlation matrix and extracted if they had an eigenvalue ≥ 1. Sampling adequacy was determined by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure.

The discriminative capacity examines whether quality indicators are capable of reflecting meaningful changes in quality of care. Aspects of this measure were the overall fulfilment rates of the indicators as well as the range of performance between providers and floor and ceiling effects, which occur when all patients receiving care from a specific provider are not fulfilling and fulfilling the examined indicator, respectively. Feasibility is given when indicator data can be collected from the specified data sources for a major part of the defined subpopulation. This is reflected in the number of missing values. Moreover, the documentation rate shows if it is possible to obtain data from medical records.

Patient-professional agreement was assessed by agreement between GP and patient perspectives on the performance of the quality indicators. We used positive agreement (PA) and negative agreement (NA) as measures of agreement, which have been shown to be less biased than the more commonly used kappa coefficient [36]. These measures are defined by the formulas

$$PA=\frac{2a}{2a+b+c}\;\mathrm{and}\;NA=\frac{2d}{b+c+2d}$$

with ‘a’ indicating fulfilment in both indicator sources, ‘b’ and ‘c’ indicating fulfilment in one and non-fulfilment in the other indicator source and ‘d’ indicating non-fulfilment in both indicator sources. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency of the selected indicator sets.

Analysing construct validity of the quality scores

Multilevel multivariable linear regression models adjusted for random effects at the GP practice level were used to analyse the association between patient characteristics and both summary scores of the selected quality indicators (dependent variables). Independent variables included sociodemographic data, health status, utilisation of primary care, patient satisfaction and the willingness to use the GP as coordinator of treatment. Results from inferential statistics were reported as ß-coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). An alpha level of 5% (p < 0.05) was defined as statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 15.1.

Results

Study population

The recruitment process of study participants is described in Fig. 1. In the participating practices, 1243 eligible patients were contacted for informed consent, 362 patients (29.1%) agreed to participate and 346 could be included in the analyses. The median cluster size was 8 patients per practice (interquartile range: 6 to 13 patients).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of patient recruitment. GP, general practitioner

Participating GPs had a median age of 57 (IQR 50 to 60) years, and 54.3% were women. GPs had been practising for a median of 20 (IQR 12 to 26) years. More than half of the GP population (57.1%) worked in individual practices, 5.7% in group practices where all physicians have their own patient base, 31.4% in joint practices where all physicians share the same patient base and 5.7% were employed or self-employed in medical care centres. The median number of physicians in the participating practices was 2 (IQR 1–3). In 17.7% of the practices, fewer than 750 patients per quarter were treated, 23.5% of the practices treated 750 to 1000 patients and 58.8% treated 1000 patients per quarter or more.

The patient population is described in Table 1. The patients had a median age of 78 (IQR 72–83) years, and 55.2% were women. More than one third of the patients (35.8%) were living alone. Most patients (56.1%) had uncompleted, general elementary or basic vocational education, and almost nine out of ten patients (88.0%) were born in Germany and had parents, which were also born in Germany. The median number of chronic conditions was 10 (IQR 7–15). The median EQ-5D-5L score was 0.84 (IQR 0.62–0.94) points, and patients rated their health with a median of 65 (IQR 50–80) points. Patients had an average of 2 (IQR 1–3) contacts with their GP in the previous 3 months, 44.6% participated in disease management programmes and nearly nine in ten (89.6%) would recommend their GP to other patients. The median willingness to use their GP as coordinator of treatment was 22 (IQR 19–24) points in the F-HaBi score. As shown in Table 2, the most prevalent diseases in our sample were hypertension (68.2%), chronic low back pain (59.2%) and osteoarthritis (47.3%).

Table 1 Patient population
Table 2 Chronic conditions with sample prevalence ≥ 5%

Selection of the core sets

The stepwise backward selection to define the core sets of quality indicators is detailed in the Tables 3 and 4. Twelve GP-assessed quality indicators and seven patient-assessed quality indicators were excluded. In the previous stages of the project, a measurement framework for healthcare quality [23] had been proposed. Table 5 shows that all three levels of healthcare and all nine care domains of the complete indicator set are represented by both core sets combined. The GP-reported indicators cover eight domains and the patient-reported indicators cover five domains. The final questionnaires for both core sets can be found in Additional file 2.

Table 3 Excluded quality indicators (GP assessment)
Table 4 Excluded quality indicators (patient assessment)
Table 5 Levels of healthcare and care domains of selected core sets and excluded quality indicators

Properties of the selected indicators

The characteristics of the core quality indicators are presented in Table 6. The GP-reported indicators had an item-total correlation between 0.332 and 0.576 and the patient-reported indicators between 0.339 and 0.440. Both exploratory factor analyses resulted in one extracted factor with an eigenvalue of 3.27 and 1.33, respectively. The core quality indicators had loadings between 0.416 and 0.673, and 0.311 and 0.545, respectively. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.774 and 0.758, respectively. We determined a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.806 and 0.628, respectively, for the selected core indicator sets.

Table 6 Characteristics of selected core sets of quality indicators

Overall, the fulfilments rate of the indicators ranged from 24.6 to 89.0%. Fourteen quality indicators had floor effects between 0 and 14.7%, and the others were at 28.6%, 35.3% and 41.2%. Eleven indicators had ceiling effects between 0 and 11.8%, five were between 17.1 and 34.3% and one at 91.4%. For the ten analysed indicators, documentation rates ranged from 50.3 to 73.0%. Between 0 and 12.7% of the values were missing. With positive agreement rates between 33.3 and 75.9% and negative agreement rates between 24.1 and 61.8%, seventeen of the analysed indicators showed low to moderate agreement between patients and professionals. One indicator had 90.7% positive agreement and 5.1% negative agreement.

Construct validity of the quality scores

The results of the multivariable analyses of the associations between patient characteristics and GP- and patient-reported quality scores are shown in the Tables 7 and 8. The GP-reported quality score was lower when patients were born abroad (− 1.04, 95% CI − 2.00/ − 0.08, p = 0.033) and when they had higher health-related quality of life (− 1.37 per point in the EQ-5D-5L score, 95% CI − 2.39/ − 0.36, p = 0.008). The quality score was higher when the patients had more contacts with their GP (0.14 per contact, 95% CI 0.04/0.23, p = 0.007) and when they were more willing to use the GP as coordinator of treatment (0.13 per point F-HaBi score, 95% CI 0.06/0.20, p < 0.001). The patient-reported quality score was higher when patients visited their GP more often (0.12 per contact, 95% CI 0.04/0.20, p = 0.006) and when they had a higher level of commitment to their GP (0.16 per point, 95% CI 0.10/0.21, p < 0.001).

Table 7 Association between patient characteristics and GP-reported quality score (n = 306)
Table 8 Association between patient characteristics and patient-reported quality score (n = 306)

Discussion

Statement of principal findings

To our knowledge, the MULTIqual project is the first study to develop and validate quality indicators for the primary care of patients with multimorbidity in a systematic, multi-step approach. In this study, we selected core sets of twelve GP-reported and seven patient-reported quality indicators that represented all nine care quality dimensions of the complete indicator set, demonstrated good internal consistency and robust structural and construct validity and can be collected through new or already existing GP and patient surveys. Depending on access to data sources, either patient-reported or GP-reported—or both indicator core sets—can be used, allowing for broader application of the indicators. The core sets provide viable alternatives to the untested set of indicators, as the size of the set and the cost of measurement are also important considerations for implementation [38,39,40].

Strengths and limitations

Following a well-established methodology, our quality indicators were identified through a multistep process that combined available evidence and expert consensus [41], represent multiple systematically selected domains of care specific for populations with multimorbidity and are therefore a more valid alternative to the fragmented and disease-specific quality assessment through existing patient-reported experience and outcome measures [15] such as or the European Task Force on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care questionnaire (EUROPEP) [42] or EQ-5D [27]. As the indicators were developed based on literature review and expert opinions without connection to a specific disease spectrum [23], our indicators are per se generic and equally applicable to all multimorbidity constellations that impact subjective health status.

Data were analysed using multivariable analyses, adjusted for potential confounders, and multilevel models, allowing for cluster effects. However, the core sets of quality indicators were selected by a backward selection algorithm, which is known to be sensitive to differences in the distribution of the included variables. As a result, the identified core sets represent coherent sets of quality indicators, but not necessarily the best possible selection. It is important to note that the data in our study were collected via self-report, which may introduce recall problems, errors and social desirability. The study design was cross-sectional, which means that the direction of associations cannot be determined, i.e. whether quality scores influence quality of life or vice versa.

The response rate for this study was a low (29.1%), possibly limiting its representativeness as certain groups (e.g. male, younger, less educated and less healthy living patients) are often underrepresented in low-response samples. Despite these differences in descriptive data between samples and the population, there is usually little effect of low response rates on the reported associations in the dataset [43,44,45,46]. For patient safety reasons, we had to exclude patients in poor health, which narrows our construct of multimorbidity. Furthermore, only diseases that are frequently co-occurring with other diseases [47, 48] were defined as inclusion criteria. However, many common diseases that do not fall within this definition are still prevalent in our sample such as chronic gastritis/gastroesophageal reflux disease (24.6%) or liver disease (6.4%), as patients with additional conditions were not excluded.

Another potential bias in our study sample is that participating GPs are likely to be highly motivated and interested in the topic. The quality of primary care for patients with multimorbidity might therefore be overestimated. Moreover, the study was conducted in major German cities with a high density of healthcare providers. The average population of German GPs is slightly younger than our study sample (55 vs. 57 years), the proportion of women is slightly lower (49% vs. 54%) and on average practices are smaller (average of 850 patients per quarter vs. 59% treating 1000 patients or more [49]). Therefore, caution should be taken when generalising the results to medically deprived areas.

Finally, it should be mentioned that this study was observational and had multiple outcomes without prior sample size calculation. Due to the relatively small sample size of 346 patients from 35 practices, predictors of reduced healthcare quality may have been missed due to limited statistical power.

Comparison with the literature

Pilot testing of quality indicators for primary care and community settings is rarely reported. Consequently, well-defined criteria and standards for empirical validation are lacking [50, 51]. In Germany, testing of quality indicators is mainly carried out by central organisations commissioned by the Federal Joint Committee [21]. This makes the application and validation of core sets by independent researchers and health experts an innovative component of the MULTIqual project.

Previous studies have shown that quality of care increases with the number of diagnoses when using disease-specific indicators, particularly in concordant conditions with similar pathophysiological profiles and disease management [52,53,54]. However, patient safety and patient-centred outcomes have been found to be negatively associated with the number and severity of conditions [54, 55]. There is evidence linking higher severity of comorbidities with higher quality of care according to process measures. This is consistent with our findings of an inverse relationship between quality of life and quality of care per GP-reported measures [54]. Zulman et al. [56] hypothesise that higher healthcare utilisation by patients, e.g. due to clinical complexity and reduced health status, leads to more intensive monitoring, more frequent assessment of healthcare needs and subsequent adjustments to their treatment.

In our study, quality scores improve with commitment to the GP. In Germany, which does have a compulsory primary care system and allows free choice of healthcare provider, this relationship is based solely on mutual trust and voluntariness [57]. However, we did not find evidence supporting the link between participation in DMPs and improvements in care structure and processes [25, 58, 59], although with enrolment in a DMP, some of the criteria measured by the indicator sets should already become an integral part of the care regimen.

Implications for research and clinical practice

The results of the pilot study demonstrated that the core sets can be a useful tool for the identification of areas in primary care with potential for improvement. Although many researchers advocate for patient-centred care in the context of multimorbidity [60,61,62], treatment goals or patient preferences were established in less than half of all cases. These findings suggest that patient-centred care planning is not yet fully realised. Tinetti et al. [63] were able to show that aligning care with patient preferences led to a reduction in unwanted treatments, medications and diagnostic tests. Widespread adoption of these principles could potentially have a similar impact on the German healthcare system, where patients with multimorbidity incur significant healthcare utilisation due to the lack of gatekeeping in primary care [4, 64].

Indicators of process quality are most useful for quality improvement purposes as they more directly reflect changes in practice [65, 66]. Moreover, our findings may guide the future development of electronic documentation systems, ultimately seeking to improve documentation quality and enable quality monitoring through built-in performance measurement [67]. In Germany, the digital transformation of GP practices is still in its early stages, so that despite major barriers to this development, further progress in current documentation standards can be expected in the coming years [68, 69].

While the development of the candidate indicator was informed by international evidence—most notably the multimorbidity guideline by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [70], the German College of General Practitioners [71] and the American Geriatrics Society [72]—evaluation and consensus of the indicators was obtained by a German expert panel and is thus geared to the specifics of the German healthcare system [23]. Therefore, in principle, the indicators are internationally relevant and transferable to other healthcare systems. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to adapt indicator descriptions and modes of data collection. In particular, it should be examined if easily accessible data can be used as data sources for quality indicators [73, 74], e.g. standardised documentation in medical records in the UK [75].

Longitudinal studies are required to examine the responsiveness of quality scores to change, costs and potential unintended consequences, as well as long-term benefits resulting from the implementation of these quality indicators. This should be done by conducting a cost-utility analysis and measuring changes in indicator scores over time in relation to health outcomes [21, 76, 77]. Unfortunately, there is still no robust evidence of the benefits of using quality indicators. However, improvements in care processes have been achieved by creating the conditions for the implementation of indicators, including increased use of digital solutions, prompts, recall systems and better documentation [78]. In light of future advances in multimorbidity research and corresponding changes in guideline recommendations, the indicators should be regularly updated to best reflect current evidence [79].

Conclusions

The quality indicator core sets developed in our study are the first brief measurement tools specifically designed to assess the quality of care for people with multimorbidity. Our results demonstrate that development and validation of such indicators for multimorbidity are feasible and can be extended to other countries. By offering a viable alternative to disease-specific metrics, the core sets can facilitate the implementation of treatment standards, promote patient-centred care and provide guidance for the future development of electronic documentation systems. However, further research is necessary to understand the cost–benefit ratio of implementing these indicators.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available, because the patient consent statement did not specify that data would be published, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

95% CI:

95% Confidence intervals

CASMIN:

Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations

DMPs:

Disease management programmes

EUROPEP:

European Task Force on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care

EQ-5D-5L:

EuroQol Five-Dimension Scale

EQ-VAS:

EuroQoL visual analogue scale

F-HaBi:

Questionnaire on Intensity of the Commitment to the GP (‘Fragebogen zur Intensität der Hausarztbindung’)

GP:

General practitioner

ICF:

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

IQR:

Interquartile range

n :

Number of participants

NA:

Negative agreement

p :

Probability value

PA:

Positive agreement

References

  1. Kingston A, Robinson L, Booth H, Knapp M, Jagger C. Projections of multi-morbidity in the older population in England to 2035: estimates from the Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) model. Age Ageing. 2018;47:374–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Banerjee A, Hurst J, Fottrell E, Miranda JJ. Multimorbidity: not just for the West. Glob Heart. 2020;15:45. https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.835.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee ES, Lee PSS, Xie Y, Ryan BL, Fortin M, Stewart M. The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care: a comparison of two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions in Singapore. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1409. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11464-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. van den Bussche H, Koller D, Kolonko T, Hansen H, Wegscheider K, Glaeske G, et al. Which chronic diseases and disease combinations are specific to multimorbidity in the elderly? Results of a claims data based cross-sectional study in Germany. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Makovski TT, Schmitz S, Zeegers MP, Stranges S, van den Akker M. Multimorbidity and quality of life: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2019;53:100903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2019.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jindai K, Nielson CM, Vorderstrasse BA, Quiñones AR. Multimorbidity and functional limitations among adults 65 or older, NHANES 2005–2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E151. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160174.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Soley-Bori M, Ashworth M, Bisquera A, Dodhia H, Lynch R, Wang Y, Fox-Rushby J. Impact of multimorbidity on healthcare costs and utilisation: a systematic review of the UK literature. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71:e39–46. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X713897.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Palladino R, Tayu Lee J, Ashworth M, Triassi M, Millett C. Associations between multimorbidity, healthcare utilisation and health status: evidence from 16 European countries. Age Ageing. 2016;45:431–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afw044.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294:716–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.6.716.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. May C, Montori VM, Mair FS. We need minimally disruptive medicine. BMJ. 2009;339:b2803. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moffat K, Mercer SW. Challenges of managing people with multimorbidity in today’s healthcare systems. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0344-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Schiøtz ML, Høst D, Frølich A. Involving patients with multimorbidity in service planning: perspectives on continuity and care coordination. J Comorb. 2016;6:95–102. https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2016.6.81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Colombo F, García-Goñi M, Schwierz C. Addressing multimorbidity to improve healthcare and economic sustainability. J Comorb. 2016;6:21–7. https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2016.6.74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. National Quality Forum. Multiple chronic conditions measurement framework. 2012. https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2012/05/MCC_Measurement_Framework_Final_Report.aspx. Accessed 27 Apr 2022.

  15. Valderas JM, Gangannagaripalli J, Nolte E, Boyd CM, Roland M, Sarria-Santamera A, et al. Quality of care assessment for people with multimorbidity. J Intern Med. 2019;285:289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12881.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Salzer MS, Nixon CT, Schut LJA, Karver MS, Bickman L. Validating quality indicators: quality as relationship between structure, process, and outcome. Eval Rev. 1997;21:292–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260:1743–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vuk T. Quality indicators: a tool for quality monitoring and improvement. ISBT Sci Ser. 2012;7:24–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2824.2012.01584.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pillay M, Dennis S, Harris MF. Quality of care measures in multimorbidity. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43:132–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Petrosyan Y, Barnsley JM, Kuluski K, Liu B, Wodchis WP. Quality indicators for ambulatory care for older adults with diabetes and comorbid conditions: a Delphi study. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0208888. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208888.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmitt J, Petzold T, Eberlein-Gonska M, Neugebauer EAM. Requirements for quality indicators. The relevance of current developments in outcomes research for quality management. [Anforderungsprofil an Qualitätsindikatoren. Relevanz aktueller Entwicklungen der Outcomes Forschung für das Qualitätsmanagement]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107:516–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2013.09.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morris JN, Moore T, Jones R, Mor V, Angelelli J, Berg K, et al. Validation of long-term and post-acute care quality indicators. 2002. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/NursingHomeQualityInits/Downloads/NHQIexecsummary_finaldraft.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2022.

  23. Schulze J, Glassen K, Pohontsch NJ, Blozik E, Eißing T, Breckner A, et al. Measuring the quality of care for older adults with multimorbidity: results of the MULTIqual project. Gerontologist. 2022;62:1135–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pohontsch NJ, Schulze J, Hoeflich C, Glassen K, Breckner A, Szecsenyi J, et al. Quality of care for people with multimorbidity: a focus group study with patients and their relatives. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e047025. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Stock S, Drabik A, Büscher G, Graf C, Ullrich W, Gerber A, et al. German diabetes management programs improve quality of care and curb costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:2197–205. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Busse R. Disease management programs in Germany’s statutory health insurance system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.3.56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hansen H, Schäfer I, Porzelt S, Kazek A, Lühmann D, Scherer M. Regional and patient-related factors influencing the willingness to use general practitioners as coordinators of the treatment in northern Germany - results of a cross-sectional observational study. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01180-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Brauns H, Scherer S, Steinmann S. The CASMIN Educational Classification in International Comparative Research. In: Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Wolf C, editors. Advances in Cross-National Comparison. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2003. p. 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9186-7_11.

  30. Ludwig K, Graf von der Schulenburg, J.-Matthias, Greiner W. German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36:663-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8.

  31. Visser MJ, Kershaw T, Makin JD, Forsyth BWC. Development of parallel scales to measure HIV-related stigma. AIDS Behav. 2008;12:759–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-008-9363-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Risser J, Jacobson TA, Kripalani S. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) in low-literacy patients with chronic disease. J Nurs Meas. 2007;15:203–19. https://doi.org/10.1891/106137407783095757.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kripalani S, Risser J, Gatti ME, Jacobson TA. Development and evaluation of the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) among low-literacy patients with chronic disease. Value Health. 2009;12:118–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00400.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zijlmans EAO, Tijmstra J, van der Ark LA, Sijtsma K. Item-Score Reliability as a Selection Tool in Test Construction. Front Psychol. 2019;9:2298.

  36. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:551–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-m.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

  38. Stumm J, Thierbach C, Peter L, Schnitzer S, Dini L, Heintze C, Döpfmer S. Coordination of care for multimorbid patients from the perspective of general practitioners – a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20:160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-1048-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Schang L, Blotenberg I, Boywitt D. What makes a good quality indicator set? A systematic review of criteria. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;33:mzab107. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Auras S, de Cruppé W, Blum K, Geraedts M. Mandatory quality reports in Germany from the hospitals’ point of view: a cross-sectional observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:378. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-378.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall M. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:358–64. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.4.358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Wensing M, Mainz J, Grol R. A standardised instrument for patient evaluations of general practice care in Europe. Eur J Gen Practice. 2000;6:82–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cheung KL, ten Klooster PM, Smit C, de Vries H, Pieterse ME. The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: a comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4189-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Abrahamsen R, Svendsen MV, Henneberger PK, Gundersen GF, Torén K, Kongerud J, Fell AKM. Non-response in a cross-sectional study of respiratory health in Norway. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009912.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Simonetti JA, Clinton WL, Taylor L, Mori A, Fihn SD, Helfrich CD, Nelson K. The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of healthcare employee burnout. Healthcare. 2020;8:100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Choung RS, Locke GR, Schleck CD, Ziegenfuss JY, Beebe TJ, Zinsmeister AR, Talley NJ. A low response rate does not necessarily indicate non-response bias in gastroenterology survey research: a population-based study. J Public Health. 2013;21:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-012-0513-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Prados-Torres A, Calderón-Larrañaga A, Hancco-Saavedra J, Poblador-Plou B, van den Akker M. Multimorbidity patterns: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:254–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Violan C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Flores-Mateo G, Salisbury C, Blom J, Freitag M, et al. Prevalence, determinants and patterns of multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies. PLoS One. 2014;9:e102149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102149.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Violan C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Flores-Mateo G, Salisbury C, Blom J, Freitag M, Glynn L, Muth C, Valderas JM. Prevalence, determinants and patterns of multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies. PLoS One. 2014;9:e102149.

  50. Nothacker M, Stokes T, Shaw B, Lindsay P, Sipilä R, Follmann M, Kopp I. Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures. Implement Sci. 2016;11:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0369-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Campbell SM, Kontopantelis E, Hannon K, Burke M, Barber A, Lester HE. Framework and indicator testing protocol for developing and piloting quality indicators for the UK quality and outcomes framework. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Piette JD, Kerr EA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:725–31. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.29.03.06.dc05-2078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ricci-Cabello I, Stevens S, Kontopantelis E, Dalton ARH, Griffiths RI, Campbell JL, et al. Impact of the prevalence of concordant and discordant conditions on the quality of diabetes care in family practices in England. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13:514. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1848.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Ricci-Cabello I, Violán C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Mounce LTA, Valderas JM. Impact of multi-morbidity on quality of healthcare and its implications for health policy, research and clinical practice. A scoping review. Eur J Gen Pract. 2015;21:192–202. https://doi.org/10.3109/13814788.2015.1046046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Panagioti M, Stokes J, Esmail A, Coventry P, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Alam R, Bower P. Multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135947. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135947.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zulman DM, Asch SM, Martins SB, Kerr EA, Hoffman BB, Goldstein MK. Quality of care for patients with multiple chronic conditions: the role of comorbidity interrelatedness. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:529–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2616-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Schlette S, Lisac M, Blum K. Integrated primary care in Germany: the road ahead. Int J Integr Care. 2009;9:e14. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.311.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Achelrod D, Welte T, Schreyögg J, Stargardt T. Costs and outcomes of the German disease management programme (DMP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-a large population-based cohort study. Health Policy. 2016;120:1029–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Jonitz G, Mansky T, Scriba PC, Selbmann H-K, editors. Ergebnisverbesserung durch Qualitätsmanagement: Aktuelle Maßnahmen, Nachweise, Stand der Evaluierung. Report Versorgungsforschung Bd. 8. Köln: Dt. Ärzte-Verl.; 2014

  60. Poitras M-E, Maltais M-E, Bestard-Denommé L, Stewart M, Fortin M. What are the effective elements in patient-centered and multimorbidity care? A scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:446. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3213-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Boyd CM, Lucas GM. Patient-centered care for people living with multimorbidity. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2014;9:419–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0000000000000073.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Harris MF, Dennis S, Pillay M. Multimorbidity: negotiating priorities and making progress. Aust Fam Physician. 2013;42:850–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tinetti ME, Naik AD, Dindo L, Costello DM, Esterson J, Geda M, et al. Association of patient priorities–aligned decision-making with patient outcomes and ambulatory health care burden among older adults with multiple chronic conditions: a nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:1688–97. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Schneider A, Donnachie E, Tauscher M, Gerlach R, Maier W, Mielck A, et al. Costs of coordinated versus uncoordinated care in Germany: results of a routine data analysis from Bavaria. Z Allgemeinmed. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3238/zfa.2017.0297-0304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001;13:475–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ouwens M, Marres HAM, Hermens RRP, Hulscher MME, van den Hoogen, Frank JA, Grol RP, Wollersheim HCH. Quality of integrated care for patients with head and neck cancer: development and measurement of clinical indicators. Head Neck. 2007;29:378-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.20532.

  67. Holmboe ES, Weng W, Arnold GK, Kaplan SH, Normand S-L, Greenfield S, et al. The comprehensive care project: measuring physician performance in ambulatory practice. Health Serv Res. 2010;45:1912–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01160.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Matusiewicz D, Pittelkau C, Elmer A. Die Digitale Transformation im Gesundheitswesen: Transformation, Innovation, Disruption. Berlin: MWV Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Nohl-Deryk P, Brinkmann JK, Gerlach FM, Schreyögg J, Achelrod D. Barriers to digitalisation of healthcare in Germany: a survey of experts. [Hürden bei der Digitalisierung der Medizin in Deutschland – eine Expertenbefragung]. Gesundheitswesen. 2018;80:939–45. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-121010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56. Accessed 9 Dec 2020.

  71. German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM). Multimorbidität: S3-Leitlinie. 2017. https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/053-047.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2020.

  72. American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:E1-E25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04188.x.

  73. Barkhuysen P, de Grauw W, Akkermans R, Donkers J, Schers H, Biermans M, et al. Is the quality of data in an electronic medical record sufficient for assessing the quality of primary care? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:692–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Tu K, Widdifield J, Young J, Oud W, Ivers NM, Butt DA, et al. Are family physicians comprehensively using electronic medical records such that the data can be used for secondary purposes? A Canadian perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0195-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Roland M, Guthrie B. Quality and Outcomes Framework: what have we learnt? BMJ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4060.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Albrecht M, Loos S, Otten M. Cross-sectoral quality assurance in ambulatory care. [Sektorenübergreifende Qualitätssicherung in der ambulanten Versorgung]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107:528–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Lester HE, Hannon KL, Campbell SM. Identifying unintended consequences of quality indicators: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:1057. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Gillam S, Steel N. The Quality and Outcomes Framework—where next? BMJ. 2013;346:f659. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Quality Indicator Measure Development, Implementation, Maintenance, and Retirement. 2011. https://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Downloads/Resources/Publications/2011/QI_Measure_Development_Implementation_Maintenance_Retirement_Full_5-3-11.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all patients and GPs who participated in the study. We also thank Nadine Pohontsch, Sarah Hellwig, Isabel Höppchen and Johanna Behrmann for their support in data collection.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The project was supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA; grant no. 01VSF16058). The funding body had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Moreover, we acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of UKE—Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf- and DFG – German Research Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MS, IS, DL, JS2 and EB conceived and designed the study. DL and JS1 and coordinated the project. JS1, KG, AB, HH, AR and JB collected the data and made substantial contributions to the study design. AR programmed the database. IS analysed the data in collaboration with JS1. The manuscript was drafted by IS and JS1 and critically revised by all other authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingmar Schäfer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association on 10 September 2018 (file no. PV5846). All participants gave written informed consent prior to their participation in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MS, DL, IS and HH authored the DEGAM guideline on multimorbidity but have no other competing interests to declare. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Data collection and calculation of the indicators.

Additional file 2.

Questionnaires.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schäfer, I., Schulze, J., Glassen, K. et al. Validation of patient- and GP-reported core sets of quality indicators for older adults with multimorbidity in primary care: results of the cross-sectional observational MULTIqual validation study. BMC Med 21, 148 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02856-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02856-0

Keywords

  • Multimorbidity
  • Quality measurement
  • Primary care
  • Comorbidity
  • Validation study