ArticleFuture healthcare journal2025
Development and evaluation of an integrated multispecialty clinic for people with multiple long-term conditions.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The commercial elephant in the room.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The number of people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) is increasing. People with MLTC experience fragmentation of care due to single-disease-orientated healthcare organisation and have increased morbidity and mortality. We developed an innovative clinic model whereby people with MLTC are assessed by a team of specialists together in one appointment to form a consensus management plan in real time. We report the outcomes together with patient and clinician feedback. Methods: A multispecialty clinic was established to assess adults referred from the community or secondary care with MLTC. Patients were seen together by three or more relevant specialists and a coordinated plan was developed. To evaluate the clinic, we collected patient outcomes and obtained feedback from patients and clinicians in the clinic and from primary care clinicians. Results: Twenty seven patients were assessed in the multispecialty clinic with a mean age of 64.6 years; 89% had diabetes, 70.4% hypertension, 63% CKD stages 3-5, and 51.9% had heart failure. Patients were taking a mean of 10 medications. Referrals were from primary care (51.9%) and secondary care, with the commonest reason being fluid overload (29.6%). On average, 1.7 medication changes were made per patient. Compared to the 6-month period before the clinic, in the 6 months after the clinic there was a significant reduction in interactions of patients with the acute hospital services (emergency department, same-day emergency care unit and acute inpatient medicine service). In a survey of 11 patients, all reported high satisfaction with the novel clinic format. A survey of seven clinicians, including a pharmacist and trainee doctor, demonstrated positive experiences of the clinic, confidence in the clinical decision making and enhanced learning. Primary care physicians also appreciated the coordinated plan across several specialties. Discussion: In our pilot multispecialty clinic, people with MLTC were able to develop a real-time consensus plan with a group of specialists. Our approach was associated with fewer unscheduled healthcare interactions after the clinic. Our after-clinic survey showed positive responses from patients and clinicians. Future studies could examine how such a service could be rolled out to a wider group of people effectively and efficiently.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.