People with multi-morbidity are seldom supported by health professionals in resolving the dilemmas they must face. This study suggests an increased focus on patient-centredness and argues in favour of planning health care through cooperation between health professionals and people with multi-morbidity in a way that integrates both health and everyday life priorities.

Aim: To assess the feasibility of a patient-centered complex intervention for multimorbidity (CIM) based on general practice in collaboration with community health-care centers and outpatient clinics. Methods: Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, diagnoses of two or more of three chronic conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic heart conditions), and a hospital contact during the previous year. The CIM included extended consultations and nurse care manager support in general practice and intensified cross-sectorial collaboration. Elements included a structured care plan based on patients’ care goals, coordination of services, and, if appropriate, shifting outpatient clinic visits to general practice, medication review, referral to rehabilitation, and home care. The acceptability dimension of feasibility was assessed with validated questionnaires, observations, and focus groups. Results: Forty-eight patients were included (mean age 72.2 (standard deviation (SD) 9.5, range 52–89); 23 (48%) were men. Thirty-seven patients had two diseases; most commonly COPD and cardiovascular disease (46%), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular disease (23%), and COPD and diabetes (15%). Eleven (23%) patients had all three conditions. Focus group interviews with patients with multimorbidity identified three main themes: (1) lack of care coordination existed across health-care sectors before the CIM, (2) extended consultations provided better care coordination, and (3) patients want to be involved in planning their treatment and care. In focus groups, health-care professionals discussed two main themes: (1) patient-centered care and (2) culture and organizational change. Completion rates for questionnaires were 98% (47/48). Conclusions: Patients and health-care professionals found the CIM acceptable.

Background Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy than people without SMI, mainly due to overmortality from physical diseases. They are treated by professionals in three different health and social care sectors with sparse collaboration between them, hampering coherent treatment. Previous studies have shown difficulties involved in establishing such collaboration. As the preparatory phase of an intervention to improve physical health of people with SMI and increase collaboration across sector borders, we explored different actors’ experiences of barriers for collaboration. Method We collected qualitative data from patients, professionals in general practice, psychiatry and social psychiatry involved in the treatment of these patients. Data consisted of notes from meetings and observations, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results The study revealed many obstacles to collaboration and coherent treatment, including the consultation structures in general practice, sectors being subject to different legislation, and incompatible IT systems. Professionals in general practice and social psychiatry felt that they were left with the responsibility for actions taken by hospital psychiatry without opportunity to discuss their concerns with psychiatrists. There were also cultural differences between health care and social psychiatry, expressed in ideology and language. Social psychiatry had an existential approach to recovery, whereas the views of health professionals were linked to symptom control and based on outcomes. Meanwhile, patients were left in limbo between these separate ideologies with no leadership in place to promote dialogue and integrate treatments between the sectors. Conclusion Many obstacles to integrated trans-sectoral treatment of patients with SMI seem related to a lack of an overriding leadership and organizational support to establish collaboration and remove barriers related to legislation and IT. However, professional and ideological barriers also contribute. Psychiatry does not consider general practice to be part of the treatment team although general practitioners are left with responsibility for decisions taken in psychiatry; and different ideologies and treatment principles in psychiatry and municipal social psychiatry hamper the dialogue between them. There is a need to rethink the organization to avoid that the three sectors live autonomous lives with different cultures and lack of collaboration.

No abstract

Objective: This article explores experiences of people with multimorbidity, and attempts to advance understandings of the complexity of living with multimorbidity outside the medical encounter in a social identity theoretical framework. Method: This is a qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews among nine persons living with multimorbidity. The interviews are analysed inductively according to thematic content analysis. Results: The emerging themes are: 1) Impact on daily life, 2) Professional life and 3) Capacity for handling multimorbidity. People with multimorbidity experience physical limitations and psychological distress, which limits their ability to maintain social relations and affiliation to the labour market. Accordingly, they are challenged in their ability to retain a sense of normal everyday life, which is mediated by their capacity for handling multimorbidity. Discussion: Multimorbidity may compromise various social identities. The complexity of living with multimorbidity is increased by an aspiration to maintain valued social identities in order to preserve a coherent sense of self and a normal everyday life. This study suggests an increased focus on individual priorities and values outside the medical encounter, and argues in favour of recognizing the conflicts that people experience as they try to balance multimorbidity with other important aspects of their daily lives.