Cited by 2,581Chronic Disease Management StrategiesClinical practice guidelines implementationPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Quality of Care for Older Patients With Multiple Comorbid Diseases: Implications for Pay for Performance

Boyd, Cynthia M., Darer, Jonathan, Boult, Chad, Fried, Linda P., Boult, Lisa, Wu, Albert W.·2005·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to improve the quality of health care for many chronic conditions. Pay-for-performance initiatives assess physician adherence to interventions that may reflect CPG recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the applicability of CPGs to the care of older individuals with several comorbid diseases. DATA SOURCES: The National Health Interview Survey and a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries (to identify the most prevalent chronic diseases in this population); the National Guideline Clearinghouse (for locating evidence-based CPGs for each chronic disease). STUDY SELECTION: Of the 15 most common chronic diseases, we selected hypertension, chronic heart failure, stable angina, atrial fibrillation, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and osteoporosis, which are usually managed in primary care, choosing CPGs promulgated by national and international medical organizations for each. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently assessed whether each CPG addressed older patients with multiple comorbid diseases, goals of treatment, interactions between recommendations, burden to patients and caregivers, patient preferences, life expectancy, and quality of life. Differences were resolved by consensus. For a hypothetical 79-year-old woman with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis, we aggregated the recommendations from the relevant CPGs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most CPGs did not modify or discuss the applicability of their recommendations for older patients with multiple comorbidities. Most also did not comment on burden, short- and long-term goals, and the quality of the underlying scientific evidence, nor give guidance for incorporating patient preferences into treatment plans. If the relevant CPGs were followed, the hypothetical patient would be prescribed 12 medications (costing her 406 dollars per month) and a complicated nonpharmacological regimen. Adverse interactions between drugs and diseases could result. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that adhering to current CPGs in caring for an older person with several comorbidities may have undesirable effects. Basing standards for quality of care and pay for performance on existing CPGs could lead to inappropriate judgment of the care provided to older individuals with complex comorbidities and could create perverse incentives that emphasize the wrong aspects of care for this population and diminish the quality of their care. Developing measures of the quality of the care needed by older patients with complex comorbidities is critical to improving their care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.294.6.716

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2005-08-10
Volume
294
Issue
6
Pages
716
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2019286098
Cited by
2,581
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 135 · 2016: 163 · 2015: 168 · 2014: 170 · 2013: 228 · 2012: 142
FWCI
71.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32ag000120-25)
  • National Institute on Aging (T32-AG-00120, P30AG021334)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
older adults, multiple comorbidities, guideline applicability, quality of care, performance-based pay, chronic disease, medication burden, drug interactions, patient preferences, quality of life, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, hypertension, osteoarthritis, chronic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, hypercholesterolemia, primary care
MeSH terms
Aged, Chronic Disease, Geriatrics, Medicare, Humans, Primary Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Reimbursement, Incentive, United States, Comorbidity, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Cost of Illness, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review