Search

Outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) should reflect the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, yet patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (PCROs) are rarely available in large clinical and administrative data sources. Although pragmatic methods may lead to use of existing administrative data rather than new data collected directly from PLWD, interventions are truly impactful only when they change outcomes prioritized by PLWD and their caregivers. The Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes Core (PCRO Core) of the IMbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory aims to promote optimal use of outcomes relevant to PLWD and their caregivers in pragmatic trials. The PCRO Core will address key scientific challenges limiting outcome measurement, such as gaps in existing measures, methodologic constraints, and burdensome data capture. PCRO Core investigators will create a searchable library of AD/AD-related dementias (ADRD) clinical outcome measures, including measures in existing data sources with potential for AD/ADRD ePCTs, and will support best practices in measure development, including pragmatic adaptation of PCROs. Working together with other Cores and Teams within the IMPACT Collaboratory, the PCRO Core will support investigators to select from existing outcome measures, and to innovate in methods for measurement and data capture. In the future, the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory may galvanize broader embedded use of outcomes that matter to PLWD and their care partners in large health systems. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S55-S61, 2020.

Previous research suggests that transgender men and women are more likely to experience body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. Few studies have, however, investigated the manner in which body dissatisfaction and eating behavior are affected by the gender affirmation process. To address this issue, semi-structured interviews were conducted with transgender men and women (N = 22) recruited from British support groups. Participants were aged 19–71 years. Participant sexuality included heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, and asexual orientations and all participants identified themselves as white. For both transgender men and women, analyses revealed a shift from a focus on psychological wellbeing in the early stages of gender affirmation to physical wellbeing in the later stages. While body dissatisfaction appeared to dissipate as gender affirmation progressed, a common theme across the gender affirmation process was that both transgender men and women engaged in risky behaviors related to transforming body shape and size. Findings highlight the need to consider the influence of gender affirmation when researching the interconnections between attitudes, behavior, and emotions relating to gender identity.

Background: National Consensus Project for quality palliative care guidelines emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive assessment of all care domains, including physical, psychosocial, and spiritual aspects of care, for seriously ill patients. However, less is known about how real-world practice compares with this guideline. Objective: To describe clinicians' assessment practices and factors influencing their approach. Design: This is a two-part web-based survey of palliative care clinicians from five academic groups in the United States. Results: Nineteen out of 25 invited clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) completed the survey. A majority (62%) reported that, although some elements of assessment were mandatory, their usual practice was to tailor the focus of the consultation. Time limitations and workload received the highest mean scores as reasons for tailored assessment (6.1 on a 0-9 importance scale), followed by beliefs that comprehensive assessment is unnecessary (4.8) and absence of the full interdisciplinary team (4.4). All participants cited symptom acuity, and 91% cited reason for consult as factors influencing a tailored approach. Among domains "always" assessed, physical symptoms were reported most commonly (81%) and spiritual and cultural factors least commonly (24% and 19%, respectively). Although a majority of clinicians reported usually tailoring their consultations, mean importance scores for almost all assessment elements were high (range 3.9-8.8, mean 7.1); however, there was some variation based on reason for consult. Spiritual elements received lower importance scores relative to other elements (5.0 vs. 7.4 mean score for all others). Conclusion: Although clinicians placed high importance on most elements included in comprehensive palliative care, in practice they often tailored their consultations, and the perceived relative importance of domains shifted depending upon the type of consultation.

ContextPalliative care can improve the lives of people with serious illness, yet clear operational definitions of this population do not exist. Prior efforts to identify this population have not focused on Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial health plan enrollees.ObjectivesWe aimed to operationalize our conceptual definition of serious illness to identify those with serious medical conditions (SMC) among commercial insurance and MA enrollees, and to compare the populations identified through electronic health record (EHR) or claims data sources.MethodsWe used de-identified claims and EHR data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (2016-2017), to identify adults age ≥18 with SMC and examine their utilization and mortality. Within the subset found in both data sources, we compared the performance of claims and EHR data.ResultsWithin claims, SMC was identified among 10% of those aged ≥18 (5.4% ages 18-64, 27% age ≥65). Within EHR, SMC was identified among 9% of those aged ≥18 (5.6% ages 18-64, 21% ages ≥65). Hospital, emergency department and mortality rates were similar between the EHR and claims-based groups. Only 50% of people identified as having SMC were recognized by both data sources.ConclusionThese results demonstrate the feasibility of identifying adults with SMC in a commercially insured population, including MA enrollees; yet separate use of EHR or claims result in populations that differ. Future research should examine methods to combine these data sources to optimize identification and support population management, quality measurement, and research to improve the care of those living with serious illness.

Background: Little is known about the provision of palliative care to people with dementia (PWD). Objective: To examine demographic and clinical characteristics of PWD versus nondementia serious illnesses receiving community-based palliative care. Design: Retrospective study of people 65+ receiving an initial consultation from a community-based palliative care practice between September 2014 and February 2018 using registry data entered by clinicians into the Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care. Setting: Large not-for-profit organization that provides community-based hospice and palliative care services. Measurements: Demographics, consult characteristics, advance care planning, and caregiver support. Results: Of 3883 older adults receiving a first palliative care consultation from this organization, 22% (855) had a dementia diagnosis. Compared to those with nondementia serious illnesses, PWD were older with more impaired function; 36% had a prognosis of less than six months. More PWD than those without dementia had a proxy decision maker and documented advance directive. A quarter of PWD were full code before consultation; nearly half changed to some limitation afterward. Symptom characteristics were missing for 67% of PWD due to collection through self-report. Caregivers of PWD were responsible for significantly more activities of daily living than caregivers of people with nondementia serious illnesses. Conclusions: This is the first comparison of a large cohort of people with and without dementia receiving a community-based palliative care consult in the United States. Alternative measures of symptom burden should be used in registries to capture data for PWD. Understanding the unique characteristics of PWD will guide future services for this growing population.

ContextStandardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes.MethodsThis study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from five international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In five Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a seven-point "not-at-all" to "extremely important" scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists' input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings.ResultsOrganizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and health care (e.g., utilization). The top five outcomes included 1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); 2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); 3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); 4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and 5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether "care consistent with goals" can be reliably measured.ConclusionA large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly "care consistent with goals."

Importance: Prognostication in advanced dementia is challenging but may influence care. Objectives: To determine the accuracy of proxies' prognostic estimates for nursing home residents with advanced dementia, identify factors associated with those estimates, and examine the association between their estimates and use of burdensome interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were combined from 2 studies that prospectively followed 764 residents with advanced dementia and their proxies in Boston-area nursing homes for 12 months: (1) the Study of Pathogen Resistance and Exposure to Antimicrobials in Dementia, conducted from September 2009 to November 2012 (362 resident/proxy dyads; 35 facilities); and (2) the Educational Video to Improve nursing home Care in End-Stage Dementia, conducted from March 2013 to July 2017 (402 resident/proxy dyads; 62 facilities). Proxies were the residents' formally or informally designated medical decision makers. Main Outcomes and Measures: During quarterly telephone interviews, proxies stated whether they believed the resident would live less than 1 month, 1 to 6 months, 7 to 12 months, or more than 12 months. Prognostic estimates were compared with resident survival. Resident and proxy characteristics associated with proxy prognostic estimates were determined. The association between prognostic estimates and whether residents experienced any of the following was determined: hospital transfers, parenteral therapy, tube feeding, venipunctures, and bladder catheterizations. Results: The residents' mean (SD) age was 86.6 (7.3) years; 631 (82.6%) were women and 133 (17.4%) were men. Of the 764 residents, 310 (40.6%) died later than 12 months. Proxies estimated survival with moderate accuracy (C statistic, 0.67). When proxies perceived the resident would die within 6 months, they were more likely to report being asked (183 [7.2%] of 2526) vs not being asked (126 [5.0%] of 2526) about goals of care by nursing home clinicians (adjus

ContextDespite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.MethodsWe convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.ResultsPanelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

ContextMeasuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.MethodsWe deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.ResultsDuring the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%-81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%-96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0-69.6%).ConclusionVariations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.

ImportanceSerious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians.Evidence reviewWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility.FindingsSeventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received.Conclusions and relevanceClinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop n

ImportanceFor patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, clinical, and cost impact of discontinuing statin medications for patients in the palliative care setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, parallel-group, unblinded, pragmatic clinical trial. Eligibility included adults with an estimated life expectancy of between 1 month and 1 year, statin therapy for 3 months or more for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent deterioration in functional status, and no recent active cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomized to either discontinue or continue statin therapy and were monitored monthly for up to 1 year. The study was conducted from June 3, 2011, to May 2, 2013. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat approach.InterventionsStatin therapy was withdrawn from eligible patients who were randomized to the discontinuation group. Patients in the continuation group continued to receive statins.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included death within 60 days (primary outcome), survival, cardiovascular events, performance status, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, number of nonstatin medications, and cost savings.ResultsA total of 381 patients were enrolled; 189 of these were randomized to discontinue statins, and 192 were randomized to continue therapy. Mean (SD) age was 74.1 (11.6) years, 22.0% of the participants were cognitively impaired, and 48.8% had cancer. The proportion of participants in the discontinuation vs continuation groups who died within 60 days was not significantly different (23.8% vs 20.3%; 90% CI, -3.5% to 10.5%; P=.36) and did not meet the noninferiority end point. Total QOL was better for the group discontinuing s

Palliative medicine must prioritize the routine assessment of the quality of clinical care we provide. This includes regular assessment, analysis, and reporting of data on quality. Assessment of quality informs opportunities for improvement and demonstrates to our peers and ourselves the value of our efforts. In fact, continuous messaging of the value of palliative care services is needed to sustain our discipline; this requires regularly evaluating the quality of our care. As the reimbursement mechanisms for health care in the U.S. shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value models, palliative care will be expected to report robust data on quality of care. We must move beyond demonstrating to our constituents (including patients and referrers), "here is what we do," and increase the focus on "this is how well we do it" and "let us see how we can do it better." It is incumbent on palliative care professionals to lead these efforts. This involves developing standardized methods to collect data without adding additional burden, comparing and sharing our experiences to promote discipline-wide quality assessment and improvement initiatives, and demonstrating our intentions for quality improvement on the clinical frontline.