Étude du suivi conjoint par un médecin spécialiste chez les adultes avec maladies chroniques suivis en première ligne

Background: Medical specialist physicians can be involved either as comanagers (responsible for follow-up of patients) or consultants (provide advice/specialized interventions) in the care of patients with chronic diseases (CDs) managed in a primary health care (PHC) setting. Evidences concerning determinants and impact of type of specialist involvement are currently lacking, in particular the influence of comorbidity and how best to measure this factor.   Objectives: The objectives were 1) to determine clinical, patient and PHC organizational characteristics associated with type of specialist involvement in patients with CDs; 2) to assess whether type of specialist involvement is associated with emergency department (ED) use and; 3) to identify methods for selecting a comorbidity index for specialist services research. Methods: 709 adults (65 +/- 11 years) with diabetes, heart failure, arthritis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were recruited in 33 PHC practices. Standardized surveys were used to measure patient (gender, age, education, income, comorbidity, quality of life) and practice characteristics (model, remuneration mode, resources, role of nurse). Information on specialist services and ED use was procured from the Quebec physician claims database. We used multivariate logistic regression to 1) model variables associated with being comanaged and 2) compare ED use among persons with different types of specialist involvement. We conducted two systematic reviews: 1) review articles on comorbidity indices to identify proposed selection procedures and 2) studies on specialist services utilization to identify selection processes actually used. Results: One third of our sample saw a specialist; the majority (62%) was as a comanager. Comanagement was associated  with higher disease severity, younger age, higher education level and income and primary care management in practices without a nurse in advanced practice role. There was no difference in rates of ED use over one year between patients with or without specialist involvement, either as a comanager (adjusted OR = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.61-1.85) or as a consultant (adjusted OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.63-1.50). Quantity of comorbidity was not associated with either comanagement or impact of specialist involvement on ED use.  Our systematic review revealed no standardized selection process of a comorbidity index. However, 10 distinct criteria related to accuracy and applicability of a measurement scale or validity of reported studies were compiled. Studies on specialist services utilization mostly used the Charlson comorbidity index, but none justified their choice. Conclusion: Specialist support in the management of patients with CDs and comorbidity should be provided on a consultant basis. The PHC practice model with a nurse in an advanced practice role may reduce the need for specialist comanagement. When adjusting for comorbidity, researchers should use a structured process to select the appropriate index based on standard criteria such as validity and applicability. Indices considering severity of comorbidities may be more useful than sole disease count in specialist services research.

Keyphrases: Specialty care, Chronic care, Comorbidity, Organizational models, Collaborative / interdisciplinary care, Physician utilization, Risk adjustment, Multimorbidity