4.4 Editorial Material

A Conceptual Model of the Role of Complexity in the Care of Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions

Journal

MEDICAL CARE
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages S7-S14

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000045

Keywords

chronic disease; theoretical models; healthcare delivery

Funding

  1. AHRQ HHS [R18 HS019167, R21 HS019501, R21 HS019550, R21 HS017657] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Effective healthcare for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is a US priority, but the inherent complexity makes both research and delivery of care particularly challenging. As part of AHRQ Multiple Chronic Conditions Research Network (MCCRN) efforts, the Network developed a conceptual model to guide research in this area. Objective: To synthesize methodological and topical issues relevant to MCC patient care into a framework that can improve the delivery of care and advance future research about caring for patients with MCC. Methods: The Network synthesized essential constructs for MCC research identified from roundtable discussion, input from expert advisors, and previously published models. Results: The AHRQ MCCRN conceptual model defines complexity as the gap between patient needs and healthcare services, taking into account both the multiple considerations that affect the needs of MCC patients, as well as the contextual factors that influence service delivery. The model reframes processes and outcomes to include not only clinical care quality and experience, but also patient health, well being, and quality of life. The single-condition paradigm for treating needs one-by-one falls apart and highlights the need for care systems to address dynamic patient needs. Conclusions: Defining complexity in terms of the misalignment between patient needs and services offers new insights in how to research and develop solutions to patient care needs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available