Search

OBJECTIVES To identify the top priority areas for research to optimize pharmacotherapy in older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD). DESIGN Consensus meeting. SETTING Multidisciplinary workshop supported by the National Institute on Aging, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Geriatrics Society, February 6–7, 2017. PARTICIPANTS Leaders in the Cardiology and Geriatrics communities, (officers in professional societies, journal editors, clinical trialists, Division chiefs), representatives from the NIA; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Food and Drug Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, pharmaceutical industry, and trainees and early career faculty with interests in geriatric cardiology. MEASUREMENTS Summary of workshop proceedings and recommendations. RESULTS: To better align older adults' healthcare preferences with their care, research is needed to improve skills in patient engagement and communication. Similarly, to coordinate and meet the needs of older adults with multiple comorbidities encountering multiple healthcare providers and systems, systems and disciplines must be integrated. The lack of data from efficacy trials of CVD medications relevant to the majority of older adults creates uncertainty in determining the risks and benefits of many CVD therapies; thus, developing evidence‐based guidelines for older adults with CVD is a top research priority. Polypharmacy and medication nonadherence lead to poor outcomes in older people, making research on appropriate prescribing and deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy and methods to improve adherence to beneficial therapies a priority. CONCLUSION: The needs and circumstances of older adults with CVD differ from those that the current medical system has been designed to meet. Optimizing pharmacotherapy in older adults will require new data from traditional and pragmatic research to determine optimal CVD therapy, reduce polypharmacy, increase adherence, and meet person‐centered goals. Better integration of the multiple systems and disciplines involved in the care of older adults will be essential to implement and disseminate best practices. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:371–380, 2019. See related Editorial by Forman et al. in this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Collabo RATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real-time patient survey and (ii) evaluate Collabo RATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations. Method All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete Collabo RATE post-visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the Collabo RATE score. Results While Collabo RATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age ( OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014-1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher Collabo RATE scores ( OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073-1.397). Clinician also predicts Collabo RATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site-specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in-clinic implementation and are significantly related to Collabo RATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 ( OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=−2.71, 95% CI −1.114 to −0.178). Discussion This study demonstrates that Collabo RATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To prioritize research topics relevant to the care of the growing population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions ( MCCs). Design Survey of experts in MCC practice, research, and policy. Topics were derived from white papers, funding announcements, or funded research projects relating to older adults with MCCs. Setting Survey conducted through the Health Care Systems Research Network ( HCSRN) and Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Centers ( OAICs) Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure and Network Growth Initiative, a joint endeavor of the HCSRN and OAICs. Participants Individuals affiliated with the HCSRN or OAICs and national MCC experts, including individuals affiliated with funding agencies having MCC-related grant portfolios. Measurements A 'top box' methodology was used, counting the number of respondents selecting the top response on a 5-point Likert scale and dividing by the total number of responses to calculate a top box percentage for each of 37 topics. Results The highest-ranked research topics relevant to the health and healthcare of older adults with MCCs were health-related quality of life in older adults with MCCs; development of assessment tools (to assess, e.g., symptom burden, quality of life, function); interactions between medications, disease processes, and health outcomes; disability; implementation of novel (and scalable) models of care; association between clusters of chronic conditions and clinical, financial, and social outcomes; role of caregivers; symptom burden; shared decision-making to enhance care planning; and tools to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusion Study findings serve to inform the development of a comprehensive research agenda to address the challenges relating to the care of this 'high-need, high-cost' population and the healthcare delivery systems responsible for serving it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To inform the development of a data-driven measure of quality care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions ( MCCs) derived from an electronic health record ( EHR). Design Qualitative study using focus groups, interactive webinars, and a modified Delphi process. Setting Research department within an integrated delivery system. Participants The webinars and Delphi process included 17 experts in clinical geriatrics and primary care, health policy, quality assessment, health technology, and health system operations. The focus group included 10 individuals aged 70-87 with three to six chronic conditions selected from a random sample of individuals aged 65 and older with three or more chronic medical conditions. Measurements Through webinars and the focus group, input was solicited on constructs representing high-quality care for individuals with MCCs. A working list was created of potential measures representing these constructs. Using a modified Delphi process, experts rated the importance of each possible measure and the feasibility of implementing each measure using EHR data. Results High-priority constructs reflected processes rather than outcomes of care. High-priority constructs that were potentially feasible to measure included assessing physical function, depression screening, medication reconciliation, annual influenza vaccination, outreach after hospital admission, and documented advance directives. High-priority constructs that were less feasible to measure included goal setting and shared decision-making, identifying drug-drug interactions, assessing social support, timely communication with patients, and other aspects of good customer service. Lower-priority domains included pain assessment, continuity of care, and overuse of screening or laboratory testing. Conclusion High-quality MCC care should be measured using meaningful process measures rather than outcomes. Although some care processes are currently extractable from electronic data, capturing others will require adapting and applying technology to encourage holistic, person-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To use an innovative videotape analysis method to examine how clinic time was spent during elderly patients' visits to primary care physicians. Secondary objectives were to identify the factors that influence time allocations. Data Sources. A convenience sample of 392 videotapes of routine office visits conducted between 1998 and 2000 from multiple primary care practices in the United States, supplemented by patient and physician surveys. Research Design. Videotaped visits were examined for visit length and time devoted to specific topics—a novel approach to study time allocation. A survival analysis model analyzed the effects of patient, physician, and physician practice setting on how clinic time was spent. Principal Findings. Very limited amount of time was dedicated to specific topics in office visits. The median visit length was 15.7 minutes covering a median of six topics. About 5 minutes were spent on the longest topic whereas the remaining topics each received 1.1 minutes. While time spent by patient and physician on a topic responded to many factors, length of the visit overall varied little even when contents of visits varied widely. Macro factors associated with each site had more influence on visit and topic length than the nature of the problem patients presented. Conclusions. Many topics compete for visit time, resulting in small amount of time being spent on each topic. A highly regimented schedule might interfere with having sufficient time for patients with complex or multiple problems. Efforts to improve the quality of care need to recognize the time pressure on both patients and physicians, the effects of financial incentives, and the time costs of improving patient–physician interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Under-treatment of pain is a worldwide problem. We examine how often pain was addressed and the factors that influence how much time was spent on treating pain. We analyzed 385 videotapes of routine office visits in several primary care practices in the Southwest and Midwest regions of the United States. We coded the visit contents and the time spent on pain and other topics. Logistic regression and survival analyses examined the effects of time constraint, physician’s supportiveness, patient’s health, and demographic concordance. We found that discussion of pain occurred in 48% of visits. A median of 2.3min was spent on addressing pain. The level of pain, physician’s supportiveness, and gender concordance were significantly associated with the odds of having a pain discussion. Time constraints and racial concordance significantly influenced the length of discussion. We conclude that despite repeated calls for addressing under-treatment for pain, only a limited amount of time is used to address pain among elderly patients. This phenomenon could contribute to the under-treatment of pain. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]