ArticleBMC medicine2026
Mapping quality of primary care among 0.5 million people with multiple long-term conditions in England, 2015-2024: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the number of people with multimorbidity continues to increase, the traditional medical care model - based on single disease models - has become increasingly unsuitable to meet current challenges, leading to concerns about the quality of primary care for patients with multimorbidity. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of care for people with multimorbidity in primary care, using quality indicators identified in Electronic Health Records (EHR) data.
methodsThis study used EHR from the Discover-NOW Hub for April 2015-2024, covering 95% of northwest London's population. Through review of literature and clinical guidelines, we identified eight generic and six multimorbidity-specific quality indicators (QIs) for primary care, with consideration of the availability of indicators within EHR data. The final list was derived following discussion with people with lived experience of multimorbidity and clinicians. We used heat maps to report the QI attainment levels and conducted Ordinary Least Squares and logistic regression analyses to assess sociodemographic and health-related inequalities in relation to generic and multimorbidity-specific QI.
resultsThis study included 509,782 adult patients with multimorbidity. Attainment on generic QIs (range 23.5%-79.8%) was generally higher than multimorbidity-specific indicators (< 30%). QIs were generally stable over the past decade, but significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and fluctuated across individual QIs. Compared with healthier multimorbidity groups, those living with more comorbidities, polypharmacy and more severe frailty had higher levels of QI scores and had higher odds of uptake of individual QIs. Notably, we found socioeconomic inequalities, especially regarding ethnicity and neighbourhood deprivation, though this varied by QI.
conclusionsThis study provides real-world evidence of the quality of primary care among multimorbidity patients. There was lower attainment on multimorbidity-specific QI than general indicators, with less affluent and some minority ethnic groups less likely to receive good care. Policymakers should focus on approaches to improve the support of primary care clinicians in the delivery of person-centred care for individuals with multimorbidity. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms for differential QI attainment and support primary care teams to improve the quality of care for people with multimorbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.