Search

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]

Background: While survival after acute myocardial infarction has improved substantially, older adults remain at heightened risk for hospital readmissions and death. Evidence for the role of cognitive impairment in older myocardial infarction survivors' risk for these outcomes is limited.Methods: 3041 patients aged ≥75 years hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (mean age 82 ± 5 years, 56% male) recruited from 94 US hospitals. Cognition was assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status; scores of <27 and <22 indicated mild and moderate/severe impairment, respectively. Readmissions and death at 6 months post-discharge were ascertained via participant report and medical record review. Associations between cognition and outcomes were evaluated with multivariable-adjusted logistic regression.Results: Mild and moderate/severe cognitive impairment were present in 11% and 6% of the cohort, respectively. Readmission and death at 6 months occurred in 41% and 9% of participants, respectively. Mild and moderate/severe cognitive impairment were associated with increased risk of readmission (odds ratio [OR] 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.72 and OR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.18-2.12, respectively) and death (OR 2.19; 95% CI, 1.54-3.11 and OR 3.82; 95% CI, 2.63-5.56, respectively) in unadjusted analyses. Significant associations between moderate/severe cognitive impairment and death (OR 1.69; 95% CI, 1.10-2.59) persisted after adjustment for demographics, myocardial infarction characteristics, comorbidity burden, functional status, and depression, but not for readmissions.Conclusions: Moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment is associated with heightened risk of death in older acute myocardial infarction patients in the months after hospitalization, but not with readmission. Routine cognitive screening may identify older myocardial infarction survivors at risk for poor outcomes who may benefit from closer oversight and support in the post-discharge period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among older adults (age ≥75 years) hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury after coronary angiography is common. Aging-related conditions may independently predict acute kidney injury, but have not yet been analyzed in large acute myocardial infarction cohorts.Methods: We analyzed data from 2212 participants age ≥75 years in the Comprehensive Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (SILVER-AMI) study who underwent coronary angiography. Acute kidney injury was defined using Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria (serum Cr increase ≥0.3 mg/dL from baseline or ≥1.5 times baseline). We analyzed the associations of traditional acute kidney injury risk factors and aging-related conditions (activities of daily living impairment, prior falls, cachexia, low physical activity) with acute kidney injury, and then performed logistic regression to identify independent predictors.Results: Participants' mean age was 81.3 years, 45.2% were female, and 9.5% were nonwhite; 421 (19.0%) experienced acute kidney injury. Comorbid diseases and aging-related conditions were both more common among individuals experiencing acute kidney injury. However, after multivariable adjustment, no aging-related conditions were retained. There were 11 risk factors in the final model; the strongest were heart failure on presentation (odds ratio [OR] 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.59), body mass index [BMI] >30 (vs BMI 18-25: OR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.42), and nonwhite race (OR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.16-2.33). The final model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 and was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .50). Acute kidney injury was independently associated with 6-month mortality (OR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.36-2.88) but not readmission (OR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.61).Conclusions: Acute kidney injury is common among older adults with acute myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angiography. Predictors largely mirrored those in previous studies of younger individuals, which suggests that geriatric conditions mediate their influence through other risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]