Search

Background: Most older adults hospitalized with COVID-19 survive their acute illness. The impact of COVID-19 hospitalization on patient-centered outcomes, including physical function, cognition, and symptoms, is not well understood. To address this knowledge gap, we collected longitudinal data about these issues from a cohort of older survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization. Methods: We undertook a prospective study of community-living persons age ≥ 60 years who were hospitalized with COVID-19 from June 2020–June 2021. A baseline interview was conducted during or up to 2 weeks after hospitalization. Follow-up interviews occurred at one, three, and six months postdischarge. Participants completed comprehensive assessments of physical and cognitive function, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. An abbreviated assessment could be performed with a proxy. Additional information was collected from the electronic health record. Results: Among 341 participants, the mean age was 71.4 (SD 8.4) years, 51% were women, and 37% were of Black race or Hispanic ethnicity. Median length of hospitalization was 8 (IQR 6–12) days. All but 4% of participants required supplemental oxygen, and 20% required care in an intensive care unit or stepdown unit. At enrollment, nearly half (47%) reported at least one preexisting disability in physical function, 45% demonstrated cognitive impairment, and 67% were pre-frail or frail. Participants reported a mean of 9 of 14 (SD 3) COVID-19-related symptoms. At the six-month follow-up interview, more than a third of participants experienced a decline from their pre-hospitalization function, nearly 20% had cognitive impairment, and burdensome symptoms remained highly prevalent. Conclusions: We enrolled a diverse cohort of older adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and followed them after discharge. Functional decline was common, and there were high rates of persistent cognitive impairment and symptoms. Future analyses of these data will advance our understanding of patient-centered outcomes among older COVID-19 survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: After hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), older adults may be at increased risk for falls due to deconditioning, new medications, and worsening health status. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for falls after AMI hospitalization among adults over age 75. Methods: We used data from the Comprehensive Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with AMI (SILVER‐AMI) study, a prospective cohort study of 3041 adults age 75 and older hospitalized with AMI at 94 community and academic medical centers across the United States. In‐person interviews and physical assessments, as well as medical record review, were performed to collect demographic, clinical, functional, and psychosocial data. Falls were self‐reported in telephone interviews and medically serious falls (those associated with emergency department use or hospitalization) were determined by medical record adjudication. Backward selection was used to identify predictors of fall risk in logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 554 (21.6%) participants reported a fall and 191 (6.4%) had a medically serious fall within 6 months of discharge. Factors independently associated with self‐reported falls included impaired mobility, prior fall history, longer hospital stay, visual impairment, and weak grip. Factors independently associated with medically serious falls included older age, polypharmacy, impaired functional mobility, prior fall history, and living alone. Conclusions: Among older patients hospitalized for AMI, falls are common in the 6 months following discharge and associated with demographic, functional, and clinical factors that are readily identifiable. Fall risk should be considered in post‐AMI clinical decision‐making and interventions to prevent falls should be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Patient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values‐based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI. DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis. SETTING: In‐depth semistructured telephone and in‐person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty‐two older adults who participated in the PHPI process. MEASUREMENTS: Open‐ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement. RESULTS: Patient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15–26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow‐up, and the inclusion of health‐related tasks in facilitation visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values‐based priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) receive care that is fragmented and burdensome, lacks evidence, and most importantly is not focused on what matters most to them. An implementation feasibility study of Patient Priorities Care (PPC), a new approach to care that is based on health outcome goals and healthcare preferences, was conducted. This study took place at 1 primary care and 1 cardiology practice in Connecticut and involved 9 primary care providers (PCPs), 5 cardiologists, and 119 older adults with MCCs. PPC was implemented using methods based on a practice change framework and continuous plan‐do‐study‐act (PDSA) cycles. Core elements included leadership support, clinical champions, priorities facilitators, training, electronic health record (EHR) support, workflow development and continuous modification, and collaborative learning. PPC processes for clinic workflow and decision‐making were developed, and clinicians were trained. After 10 months, 119 older adults enrolled and had priorities identified; 92 (77%) returned to their PCP after priorities identification. In 56 (46%) of these visits, clinicians documented patient priorities discussions. Workflow challenges identified and solved included patient enrollment lags, EHR documentation of priorities discussions, and interprofessional communication. Time for clinicians to provide PPC remains a challenge, as does decision‐making, including clinicians' perceptions that they are already doing so; clinicians' concerns about guidelines, metrics, and unrealistic priorities; and differences between PCPs and patients and between PCPs and cardiologists about treatment decisions. PDSA cycles and continuing collaborative learning with national experts and peers are taking place to address workflow and clinical decision‐making challenges. Translating disease‐based to priorities‐aligned decision‐making appears challenging but feasible to implement in a clinical setting. See related editorial by William B. Applegate et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop a values‐based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision‐making. Design: Prospective development and feasibility study. Setting: Primary care practice in Connecticut. Participants: Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64). Intervention: The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user‐centered design framework—ideate → prototype → test →redesign—to develop and refine the value‐based patient priorities care process and medical record template with trained clinician facilitators. Measurements: We used descriptive statistics of quantitative measures (percentage accepted invitation and completed template, duration of process) and qualitative analysis of barriers and enablers (challenges and solutions identified, facilitator perceptions). Results: We developed and refined a process for identifying patient health priorities that was typically completed in 35 to 45 minutes over 2 sessions; 64 patients completed the process. Qualitative analyses were used to elucidate the characteristics and training needed for the patient priorities facilitators, as well as perceived benefits and challenges of the process. Refinements based on our experience and feedback include streamlining the process for greater feasibility, balancing fidelity to the process while customizing to individuals, encouraging patients to share their priorities with their clinicians, and simplifying the template transmitted to clinicians. Conclusion: Trained facilitators conducted this process in a busy primary care practice, suggesting that patient priorities identification is feasible and acceptable, although testing in additional settings is necessary. We hope to show that clinicians can align care with patients' health priorities. See related editorial by William B. Applegate et al [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors report on the use of a Patient Priorities Care (PPC) approach to medical care for older patients with multiple chronic conditions. They discuss the use of PPC in clinical care, the perceived benefits and difficulties of discussing priorities with the patient, and how the clinicians felt about the process.

Background/Objectives Timely administration of antiischemic therapies improves outcomes in individuals with acute myocardial infarction ( AMI). Prior literature on delays in AMI care has largely focused on in-hospital delay ('door to balloon' time). Our objective was to identify factors associated with prehospital delay in a contemporary national cohort of older adults with AMI. Design Cross-sectional analysis of data from the Comprehen SIVe Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction ( SILVER- AMI) study, an observational study of older adults hospitalized for AMI. Setting U.S. academic and community hospitals (N = 94). Participants Individuals aged 75 and older hospitalized for AMI (N = 2,500). Measurements Prehospital delay was defined as symptom duration of 6 hours or longer before hospital presentation and was obtained according to participant or caregiver report during AMI hospitalization. Potential predictors of delay from demographic, clinical presentation, comorbid conditions, function, and social support domains were obtained through in-person assessment during the index hospitalization and medical record abstraction. Results Nonwhite race (adjusted odds ratio ( aOR) = 1.54, P = .002), atypical symptoms ( aOR = 1.41, P = .001), and heart failure ( HF) ( aOR = 1.35, P = .006 for HF) were significantly associated with delay. Conclusion In contrast with younger AMI populations, female sex and diabetes mellitus were not associated with delay in this older cohort, but factors from other domains (nonwhite race, atypical symptoms, and HF) were significantly associated with delay. These results can be used to customize future public health efforts to encourage early presentation for older adults with AMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]