Search

Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) during hospitalization are a serious, yet preventable concern for older adults. Our institution designed a Geriatric Prescribing Context (GPC) to adjust doses for the older adult population but its impact on ADEs was unknown. The goal of this study was to assess any differences in rates of ADEs before and after its implementation in July 2017. Methods: We used relevant ICD‐10 codes followed by confirmatory chart review to identify dose‐related ADEs from 10 commonly used medications at our institution. We assessed differences in the number of admissions with an ADE before and after the GPC implementation using a test of binomial proportions. The pre‐period was from July 2016 through June 2017 and the post‐period was from August 2017 through July 2018. We compared the rate of ADEs per 1000 patient days between periods with a Poisson rate test and further examined any differences in harm categories using a Fisher's exact test. Results: The proportion of admissions with any dose‐related ADEs significantly decreased from 0.0082 to 0.0037 after the GPC (p = 0.04). The rate of dose‐related ADEs also declined from 2.5 per 1000 patient days to 1.1 per 1000 patient days (p = 0.001). Harm categories did not change significantly between time points (p = 0.30). Conclusions: Based on our list of relevant ICD‐10 codes, the GPC was associated with lower dose‐related ADEs for our selected medications among hospitalized older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of a study on how healthcare providers can understand the experiences of patients having serious illness conversation (SIC) about their end-of-life preferences. Topics mentioned include the impact of SIC on patients' relationship with their healthcare provider, a list of themes and representative quotes from thematic analysis, and some confusion of patients about the term, goal, when discussing their preferences for their care.

Background: The medication‐related death of a hospitalized older adult elucidated the inappropriateness of medication default doses in our electronic health record (EHR) for older adults. In response, we created and implemented the Geriatric Prescribing Context (GPC), an EHR‐based set of age‐specific dose and frequency defaults for patients 75 years and older, in July 2017. Inpatient medication orders aligned with GPC defaults and showed significant dose decreases at one year for nine of ten most commonly used medications. This follow‐up investigation examined GPC alignment of dose and frequency over the 42‐month time period after its implementation. Methods: Order data for the ten most commonly used medications at OHSU Hospital were collected retrospectively from July 2016 through December 2020. We used Statistical Process Control charts to assess the proportion of medication orders aligning with the GPC's recommendations. Signals of special cause were evaluated to identify time periods when shifts in process averages likely occurred and suspected shifts were assessed using binomial proportion tests. We used RStudio (RStudio, Inc., version 1.2.5001) and Microsoft Excel (2016) to perform statistical analyses and control charts, respectively. Results: The preimplementation phase of all medications displayed no special causes. After significant initial improvement in 2017, control charts revealed three different patterns of performance. Eight medications maintained the initial improvement with one medication displaying a second significant improvement at a later date. Two medications showed a subsequent decline in performance not statistically different from baseline. Overall, eight of the ten medications were prescribed at more age‐friendly doses and frequencies compared to baseline after 42 months. Conclusions: The GPC is an effective method to support safer prescribing for hospitalized older patients, but long‐term impacts may be medication‐specific. Further investigation is needed to ensure appropriate prescribing across drug classes and understand the GPC's impact on patient outcomes like adverse drug events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.Objectives: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.Design: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.Participants: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.Main Measurements: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.Key Results: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.Conclusion: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary care providers with no advanced training in geriatrics or dementia predominately care for geriatric patients around the world. Study participants, voluntary primary care providers without geriatric training, received an hour training on diagnosis and management of dementia using the EHR tool. [Extracted from the article]

Falls are a major cause of preventable death, injury, and reduced independence in adults aged 65 years and older. The American Geriatrics Society and British Geriatrics Society (AGS/BGS) published a guideline in 2001, revised in 2011, addressing common risk factors for falls and providing recommendations to reduce fall risk in community‐dwelling older adults. In 2022, the World Falls Guidelines (WFG) Task Force created updated, globally oriented fall prevention risk stratification, assessment, management, and interventions for older adults. Our objective was to briefly summarize the new WFG, compare them to the AGS/BGS guideline, and offer suggestions for implementation in the United States. We reviewed 11 of the 12 WFG topics related to community‐dwelling older adults and agree with several additions to the prior AGS/BGS guideline, including assessment and intervention for hearing impairment and concern for falling, assessment and individualized exercises for older adults with cognitive impairment, and performing a standardized assessment such as STOPPFall before prescribing a medication that could potentially increase fall risk. Notable areas of difference include: (1) AGS continues to recommend screening all patients aged 65+ annually for falls, rather than just those with a history of falls or through opportunistic case finding; (2) AGS recommends continued use of the Timed Up and Go as a gait assessment, rather than relying on gait speed; and (3) AGS recommends clinical judgment on whether or not to check an ECG for those at risk for falling. Our review and translation of the WFG for a US audience offers guidance for healthcare and other providers and teams to reduce fall risk in older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) initiative uses a 4Ms framework-What Matters, Mentation, Medication, and Mobility-to encourage patient-centered care for older adults. Many health systems have implemented the core elements of AFHS with the goal to uniformly apply them to all patients 65 years and older. However, equity in AFHS delivery has not yet been examined.Methods: Five health equity factors-gender, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and electronic patient portal (MyChart) activation-were cross-sectionally analyzed against the 4Ms framework for patients in an academic internal medicine clinic seen between April 2020 and April 2021 (N = 3 370). Bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression models analyzed the relationship of health equity variables to the 4Ms metrics and were represented with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.Results: Preferred language, gender, and MyChart activation yielded significant 4M metric pairings. Females were 1.22 times more likely than males, and English-speaking patients were 2.27 times more likely than non-English-speaking patients to receive advance care planning (p < .01). Females and patients with MyChart activation were about 2 times more likely to have a high-risk medication on their medication list compared to males and patients without MyChart activation (p < .01). Patients with MyChart activation were 2.08 times more likely than patients without MyChart activation to get cognitive screening (p < .001).Conclusion: This study, the first to incorporate demographic data into AFHS outcomes, suggests a need to develop best practices for equitable Age-Friendly care at the clinical team and institutional policy levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]