Search

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale (very unlikely to very likely) was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patients acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

BackgroundSerious illness conversations may lead to care consistent with patients' goals near the end of life. The emergency department could serve as an important time and location for these conversations.AimTo determine the feasibility of an emergency department-based, brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations among seriously ill older adults by trained nurses.DesignA pre-/post-intervention study.Settings/participantsIn an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center and a community hospital from January 2021 to January 2022, we prospectively enrolled adults ⩾50 years of age with serious illness and an expected prognosis

BackgroundVisits to the emergency department (ED) are inflection points in patients' illness trajectories and are an underutilized setting to engage seriously ill patients in conversations about their goals of care. We developed an intervention (ED GOAL) that primes seriously ill patients to discuss their goals of care with their outpatient clinicians after leaving the ED. The aims of this study are (i) to test the impact of ED GOAL administered by trained nurses on self-reported, advance care planning (ACP) engagement after leaving the ED and (ii) to evaluate whether ED GOAL increases self-reported completion of serious illness conversation and other patient-centered outcomes.MethodsThis is a two-armed, parallel-design, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 120 seriously ill older adults in two academic and one community EDs in Boston, MA. Participants are English-speaking adults 50 years and older with a serious life-limiting illness with a recent ED visit. Patients with a valid MOLST (medical order for life-sustaining treatment) form or other documented goals of care within the last 3 months are excluded. We enroll the caregivers of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients are assigned to the intervention or control group using block randomization. A blinded research team member will perform outcome assessments. We will assess (i) changes in ACP engagement within 6 months and (ii) qualitative assessments of the effect of ED GOAL.DiscussionIn seriously ill older adults arriving in the ED, this randomized controlled trial will test the effects of ED GOAL on patients' self-reported ACP engagement, EMR documentation of new serious illness conversations, and improving patient-centered outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05209880.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are an important intervention to provide care consistent with patient goals near the end of life. The emergency department (ED) could serve as an important time and location for these conversations. Objectives: To determine the feasibility of an ED-based, brief negotiated interview (BNI) to stimulate ACP conversations among seriously ill older adults. Methods: We conducted a pre/postintervention study in the ED of an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center. From November 2017 to May 2019, we prospectively enrolled adults ≥65 years of age with serious illness. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured patients' ACP engagement at baseline and follow-up (3 ± 1 weeks) and reviewed electronic medical record documentation of ACP (e.g., medical order for life-sustaining treatment [MOLST]). Results: We enrolled 51 patients (mean age = 71; SD 12), 41% were female, and 51% of patients had metastatic cancer. Median duration of the intervention was 11.8 minutes; few (6%) of the interventions were interrupted. We completed follow-up for 61% of participants. Patients' self-reported ACP engagement increased from 3.0 to 3.7 out of 5 after the intervention (p

BackgroundDespite guidelines recommending not to continue cancer screening for adults > 75 years old, especially those with short life expectancy, primary care providers (PCPs) feel ill-prepared to discuss stopping screening with older adults.ObjectiveTo develop scripts and strategies for PCPs to use to discuss stopping cancer screening with adults > 75.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interview guides to conduct individual interviews with adults > 75 years old and focus groups and/or individual interviews with PCPs.ParticipantsForty-five PCPs and 30 patients > 75 years old participated from six community or academic Boston-area primary care practices.ApproachParticipants were asked their thoughts on discussions around stopping cancer screening and to provide feedback on scripts that were iteratively revised for PCPs to use when discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.ResultsTwenty-one (47%) of the 45 PCPs were community based. Nineteen (63%) of the 30 patients were female, and 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic white. PCPs reported using different approaches to discuss stopping cancer screening depending on the clinical scenario. PCPs noted it was easier to discuss stopping screening when the harms of screening clearly outweighed the benefits for a patient. In these cases, PCPs felt more comfortable being more directive. When the balance between the benefits and harms of screening was less clear, PCPs endorsed shared decision-making but found this approach more challenging because it was difficult to explain why to stop screening. While patients were generally enthusiastic about screening, they also reported not wanting to undergo tests of little value and said they would stop screening if their PCP recommended it. By the end of participant interviews, no further edits were recommended to the scripts.ConclusionsTo increase PCP comfort and capability to discuss stopping cancer screening with older adults, we developed scripts and strategies that PCPs may use for discussing stopping cancer screening.

During the last 6 months of life, 75% of older adults with preexisting serious illness, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease, and cancer, visit the emergency department (ED). ED visits often mark an inflection point in these patients' illness trajectories, signaling a more rapid rate of decline. Although most patients are there seeking care for acute issues, many of them have priorities other than to simply live as long as possible; yet without discussion of preferences for treatment, they are at risk of receiving care not aligned with their goals. An ED visit may offer a unique "teachable moment" to empower patients to consider their ability to influence future medical care decisions. However, the constraints of the ED setting pose specific challenges, and little research exists to guide clinicians treating patients in this setting. We describe the current state of goals-of-care conversations in the ED, outline the challenges to conducting these conversations, and recommend a research agenda to better equip emergency physicians to guide shared decisionmaking for end-of-life care. Applying best practices for serious illness communication may help emergency physicians empower such patients to align their future medical care with their values and goals.

BackgroundMost seriously ill older adults visit the emergency department (ED) near the end of life, yet no feasible method exists to empower them to formulate their care goals in this setting.ObjectiveTo develop an intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to formulate their future care goals in the ED.DesignProspective intervention development study.SettingIn a single, urban, academic ED, we refined the prototype intervention with ED clinicians and patient advisors. We tested the intervention for its acceptability in English-speaking patients ≥65 years old with serious illness or patients whose treating ED clinician answered "No" to the "surprise question" ("would not be surprised if died in the next 12 months"). We excluded patients with advance directives or whose treating ED clinician determined the patient to be inappropriate.MeasurementsOur primary outcome was perceived acceptability of our intervention. Secondary outcomes included perceived main intent and stated attitude toward future care planning.ResultsWe refined the intervention with 16 mock clinical encounters of ED clinicians and patient advisors. Then, we administered the refined intervention to 23 patients and conducted semistructured interviews afterward. Mean age of patients was 76 years, 65% were women, and 43% of patients had metastatic cancer. Most participants (n = 17) positively assessed our intervention, identified questions for their doctors, and reflected on how they feel about their future care.ConclusionAn intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to understand the importance of future care planning in the ED was developed, and they found it acceptable.

Background: Public health campaigns have often used persuasive techniques to promote healthy behaviors but the use of persuasion by doctors is controversial. We sought to examine older women's perspectives. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 20 community‐dwelling older women from the Baltimore metropolitan area. We asked whether participants thought it was ethically appropriate for doctors to try to persuade patients and explored their rationales. We probed about commonly used persuasive techniques and two example decisional contexts—stopping mammograms and moving out of one's house after multiple falls. We used qualitative thematic analysis to code the transcripts and summarized results into major themes. Results: We found mixed views on the ethical appropriateness of persuasion (theme 1); supporters of persuasion were motivated by the potential benefit to patients' health, whereas opponents thought patients should be the ultimate decision‐makers. Perspectives depended on the persuasive technique (theme 2), where emotional appeals elicited the most negative reactions while use of facts and patient stories were viewed more positively. Perspectives also varied by the decisional context (theme 3), where higher severity and certainty of harm influenced participants to be more accepting of persuasion. Participants suggested alternative communication approaches to persuasion (theme 4) that emphasized respect for patients. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the type of persuasive technique and the decisional context are important considerations in the ethical debate around the use of persuasion. Limiting the use of persuasion to high‐stakes decisions and using facts and patient stories rather than emotional appeals are likely more acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: At mammography screening invitation, the Danish Health Authority recommends women aged 50 to 69 y make an informed decision about whether to be screened. Previous studies have shown that women have very positive attitudes about screening participation. Therefore, we hypothesized that Danish women may already have decided to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving their screening invitation at age 50 y. Methods: We invited a random sample of 2,952 Danish women aged 44 to 49 y (prescreening age) to complete an online questionnaire about barriers to informed screening decision making using the official digital mailbox system in Denmark. We asked participants about their screening intentions using 3 different questions to which women were randomized: screening presented 1) as an opportunity, 2) as a choice, and 3) as an opportunity plus a question about women's stage of decision making. All women completed questions about background characteristics, intended participation in the screening program, use and impact of screening information, and preferences for the decision-making process. Data were linked to sociodemographic register data. Results: A total of 790 (26.8%) women participated in the study. Herein, 97% (95% confidence interval: 96%–98%) reported that they wanted to participate in breast cancer screening when invited at age 50 y. When presented with the choice compared with the opportunity framing, more women rejected screening. When asked about their stage of decision making, most (87%) had already made a decision about screening participation and were unlikely to change their mind. Conclusion: In our study, almost all women of prescreening age wanted to participate in breast cancer screening, suggesting that providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making. Highlights: Almost all women of prescreening age (44–49 y) in our study wanted to participate in the Danish national mammography screening program starting at age 50 y. Early decision making represents a barrier for informed decision making as women in this study had intentions to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving an official screening invitation, and therefore, providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making. Very few women rejected screening participation; however, more women rejected screening when the information was framed as an active choice between having or declining breast cancer screening (continue with usual care) compared with presenting only the option of screening with no description of the alternative. Two-thirds of women reading the screening information in this study had unchanged attitudes toward screening after reading the presented information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesTo inform the shared decision-making process between clinicians and older adults and their surrogates regarding emergency intubation.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingMulticenter, emergency department (ED)-based cohort.ParticipantsAdults aged 65 and older intubated in the ED from 2008 to 2015 from 262 hospitals across the United States (>95% of U.S. nonprofit academic medical centers).MeasurementsOur primary outcome was age-specific in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were age-specific odds of death after adjusting for race, comorbid conditions, admission diagnosis, hospital disposition, and geographic region.ResultsWe identified 41,463 ED intubation encounters and included 35,036 in the final analysis. Sixty-four percent were in non-Hispanic whites and 54% in women. Overall in-hospital mortality was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI)=34-35%). Twenty-four percent (95% CI=24-25%) of subjects were discharged to home, and 41% (95% CI=40-42%) were discharged to a location other than home. Mortality was 29% (95% CI=28-29%) for individuals aged 65 to 74, 34% (95% CI=33-35%) for those aged 75 to 79, 40% (95% CI=39-41%) for those aged 80 to 84, 43% (95% CI=41-44%) for those aged 85 to 89, and 50% (95% CI=48-51%) for those aged 90 and older.ConclusionAfter emergency intubation, 33% percent of older adults die during the index hospitalization. Only 24% of survivors are discharged to home. Simple, graphic representations of this information, in combination with an experienced clinician's overall clinical assessment, will support shared decision-making regarding unplanned intubation.

BackgroundIdentification of older adults with serious illness (life expectancy less than one year) who may benefit from serious illness conversations or other palliative care interventions in the emergency department (ED) is difficult.ObjectivesTo assess the performance of the "surprise question (SQ)" asked of emergency physicians to predict 12-month mortality.DesignWe asked attending emergency physician "Would you be surprised whether this patient died in the next 12 months?" regarding patients ≥65 years old that they had cared for that shift. We prospectively obtained death records from Massachusetts Department of Health Vital Records.SettingAn urban, university-affiliated ED.MeasurementTwelve-month mortality.ResultsWe approached 38 physicians to answer the SQ, and 86% participated. The mean age of our cohort was 76 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one serious illness. Out of 207 patients, the physicians stated that they "would not be surprised" if the patient died in the next 12 months for 102 of the patients (49%); 44 of the 207 patients (21%) died within 12 months. The SQ demonstrated sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 32%, and negative predictive value of 90%. When combined with other predictors, the model sorted the patient who lived from the patient who died correctly 72% of the time (c-statistic = 0.72).ConclusionUse of the SQ by emergency physicians may predict 12-month mortality in older ED patients and may help emergency physicians identify older adults in need of palliative care interventions.

Introduction: Our goal was to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality in olderadults after non-traumatic emergency department (ED) intubations.Methods: We used Vizient administrative data from hospitalizations of 22,374 adults >75 years whounderwent non-traumatic ED intubation from 2008-2015 at nearly 300 U.S. hospitals to develop andvalidate an index to predict in-hospital mortality. We randomly selected one half of participants for thedevelopment cohort and one half for the validation cohort. Considering 25 potential predictors, wedeveloped a multivariable logistic regression model using least absolute shrinkage and selection operatormethod to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We calculated risk scores using pointsderived from the final model’s beta coefficients. To evaluate calibration and discrimination of the finalmodel, we used Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis andcompared mortality by risk groups in the development and validation cohorts.Results: Death during the index hospitalization occurred in 40% of cases. The final model included sixvariables: history of myocardial infarction, history of cerebrovascular disease, history of metastatic cancer,age, admission diagnosis of sepsis, and admission diagnosis of stroke/ intracranial hemorrhage. Thosewith low-risk scores (10) had58% risk of in-hospital mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square of the model was 6.47 (p=0.09), andthe c-statistic was 0.62 in the validation cohort.Conclusion: The model may be useful in identifying older adults at high risk of death after ED intubation.

PurposeAccurate risk assessment is necessary for decision-making around breast cancer prevention. We aimed to develop a breast cancer prediction model for postmenopausal women that would take into account their individualized competing risk of non-breast cancer death.MethodsWe included 73,066 women who completed the 2004 Nurses' Health Study (NHS) questionnaire (all ≥57 years) and followed participants until May 2014. We considered 17 breast cancer risk factors (health behaviors, demographics, family history, reproductive factors) and 7 risk factors for non-breast cancer death (comorbidities, functional dependency) and mammography use. We used competing risk regression to identify factors independently associated with breast cancer. We validated the final model by examining calibration (expected-to-observed ratio of breast cancer incidence, E/O) and discrimination (c-statistic) using 74,887 subjects from the Women's Health Initiative Extension Study (WHI-ES; all were ≥55 years and followed for 5 years).ResultsWithin 5 years, 1.8 % of NHS participants were diagnosed with breast cancer (vs. 2.0 % in WHI-ES, p = 0.02), and 6.6 % experienced non-breast cancer death (vs. 5.2 % in WHI-ES, p

Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guidelines for optimal cancer screening in older adults remain unclear, particularly for adults over the age of 75. While cancer screening in older adults may benefit some in good health, it may cause unnecessary burdens in others with limited life expectancy. Thus, a systematic approach to enable individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults is needed. We suggest a framework that guides such decisions through evidence-based approaches from multiple interactions, and that involves the patient, clinician, and healthcare system. An individualized approach considers differences in disease risk rather than the chronological age of the patient. This paper presents a comprehensive framework that depicts the independent and converging levels of influences on individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults. This Individualized Decisions for Screening (IDS) framework recognizes the reality of these interrelationships, including the tensions that arise when behaviors and outcomes are valued differently at the patient, clinician, and healthcare organization levels. Person-centered approaches are essential to advancing multilevel research of individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults.

BackgroundThe Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT, "Gail model") is commonly used for breast cancer prediction; however, it has not been validated for women age 75 years and older.MethodsWe used Nurses' Health Study (NHS) data beginning in 2004 and Women's Health Initiative (WHI) data beginning in 2005 to compare BCRAT's performance among women age 75 years and older with that in women age 55 to 74 years in predicting five-year breast cancer incidence. BCRAT risk factors include: age, race/ethnicity, age at menarche, age at first birth, family history, history of benign breast biopsy, and atypia. We examined BCRAT's calibration by age by comparing expected/observed (E/O) ratios of breast cancer incidence. We examined discrimination by computing c-statistics for the model by age. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsSeventy-three thousand seventy-two NHS and 97 081 WHI women participated. NHS participants were more likely to be non-Hispanic white (96.2% vs 84.7% in WHI, P < .001) and were less likely to develop breast cancer (1.8% vs 2.0%, P = .02). E/O ratios by age in NHS were 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09 to 1.23, age 57-74 years) and 1.31 (95% CI = 1.18 to 1.45, age ≥ 75 years, P = .02), and in WHI 1.03 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.09, age 55-74 years) and 1.10 (95% CI = 1.00 to 1.21, age ≥ 75 years, P = .21). E/O ratio 95% confidence intervals crossed one among women age 75 years and older when samples were limited to women who underwent mammography and were without significant illness. C-statistics ranged between 0.56 and 0.58 in both cohorts regardless of age.ConclusionsBCRAT accurately predicted breast cancer for women age 75 years and older who underwent mammography and were without significant illness but had modest discrimination. Models that consider individual competing risks of non-breast cancer death may improve breast cancer risk prediction for older women.

ImportanceGuidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women aged 75 years and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to help counsel patients.ObjectiveTo provide an evidence-based approach for individualizing decision-making about screening mammography in older women.Evidence acquisitionWe searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2014, to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women aged 65 years and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women aged 75 years and older.FindingsAge is the major risk factor for developing and dying from breast cancer. Breast cancer risk factors that reflect hormonal exposures in the distant past, such as age at first birth or age at menarche, are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent hormonal exposures such as high bone mass or obesity. Randomized trials of the benefits of screening mammography did not include women older than 74 years. Thus it is not known if screening mammography benefits older women. Observational studies favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Modeling studies estimate 2 fewer breast cancer deaths/1000 women who in their 70s continue biennial screening for 10 years instead of stopping screening at age 69. Potential harms of continued screening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not have clinically surfaced otherwise) in approximately 13/1000 women screened. Providing information about life expectancy along with potential benefits and harms of screening may help older women's decision-making about screening mammography.Conclusions and relevanceFor women with less than a 10-year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should emphasize increased potential harms from screening and highlight health promotion measures likely to be beneficial over the short term. For women with a life expectancy of more than 10 years, deciding whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms becomes a value judgment for patients, requiring a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.

Management of elevated blood pressure during hospitalization varies widely. This systematic review summarizes clinical practice guideline recommendations on management of elevated blood pressure in the hospital. It encompasses guidelines on hypertension management in any setting and summarizes guideline recommendations for thresholds for treatment, circumstances for different recommendations, and preparation for safe transition to a posthospitalization setting. Background: Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) during hospitalization varies widely, with many hospitalized adults experiencing BPs higher than those recommended for the outpatient setting. Purpose: To systematically identify guidelines on elevated BP management in the hospital. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, and specialty society websites from 1 January 2010 to 29 January 2024. Study Selection: Clinical practice guidelines pertaining to BP management for the adult and older adult populations in ambulatory, emergency department, and inpatient settings. Data Extraction: Two authors independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Recommendations on treatment targets, preferred antihypertensive classes, and follow-up were collected for ambulatory and inpatient settings. Data Synthesis: Fourteen clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria (11 were assessed as high-quality per the AGREE II [Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II] instrument), 11 provided broad BP management recommendations, and 1 each was specific to the emergency department setting, older adults, and hypertensive crises. No guidelines provided goals for inpatient BP or recommendations for managing asymptomatic moderately elevated BP in the hospital. Six guidelines defined hypertensive urgency as BP above 180/120 mm Hg, with hypertensive emergencies requiring the addition of target organ damage. Hypertensive emergency recommendations consistently included use of intravenous antihypertensives in intensive care settings. Recommendations for managing hypertensive urgencies were inconsistent, from expert consensus, and focused on the emergency department. Outpatient treatment with oral medications and follow-up in days to weeks were most often advised. In contrast, outpatient BP goals were clearly defined, varying between 130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg. Limitation: Exclusion of non–English-language guidelines and guidelines specific to subpopulations. Conclusion: Despite general consensus on outpatient BP management, guidance on inpatient management of elevated BP without symptoms is lacking, which may contribute to variable practice patterns. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging. (PROSPERO: CRD42023449250) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]