Search

Background for shared decision-making, it is important to discuss of the patients’ priorities in order to align treatment decisions with these priorities. Objective to assess the most important health outcome for older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision, using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT). Secondary objectives were the feasibility of the OPT and patient variables associated with prioritising different health outcomes. Design retrospective cohort study. Setting and subjects at the University Medical Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands, 350 patients were included who visited the geriatric outpatient clinic during the work-up regarding a complex treatment decision (such as cancer treatment or heart valve replacement). Methods during geriatric assessment, patients prioritised between four health outcomes, using the OPT. Results median age was 78.5 years, 172 (49.1%) were referred regarding a treatment decision for a malignant disease. Cognitive impairment was present in 23.6%. Most patients (55.2%) prioritised maintaining independence as their most important goal, followed by extending life in 21.1%. Only cognitive impairment was significantly associated with prioritising extending life as the most important health outcome. For 107 patients (30.6%), the OPT was not feasible; these patients more often had malnutrition and assisted living. Conclusions the main health outcome of older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision was maintaining independence, followed by extending life. Patients with cognitive impairment more often prioritised extending life. The OPT was feasible as a decision aid for most patients. For optimal shared decision-making, it is crucial to take patient preferences into account.

Background the Geriatric Perioperative Care clinic at North Bristol NHS Trust was suspended in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. A virtual clinic was piloted to deliver preoperative health optimisation and shared decision-making for patients undergoing critical elective surgery. No literature existed on virtual preoperative clinics for older people to support the development. Objective this healthcare improvement study describes the setup and delivery of the virtual clinic as its primary aim. Secondary aims included: assessing older people’s access to technology and their digital literacy for virtual consultation; to describe barriers and facilitators for consultations, as well as evaluation of patient and clinician satisfaction with the consultations' mode of delivery and outcomes. Methods a mixed methods healthcare improvement study was undertaken through plan-do-study-act cycles, semi-structure interviews, and quantitative service benchmarking. Results the pilot evaluated 67 preoperative consultations (43.3% video, 56.7% telephone, mean age 75) with a mix of surgical pathology (vascular 88.1%, colorectal 10.4%, urological 1.5%). Patient feedback demonstrated improved understanding of conditions (90.6%), and adequate opportunity to express opinions and questions (96.2%). Clinicians preferred video consultations (adequate to deliver services: 89.7% video; 68.4% telephone). The greatest barriers to engagement, none of which were exclusions to participation, included cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, or needing technical assistance setting up video consultations (52.2%). Conclusions delivering a virtual preoperative medical optimisation and shared decision clinic for older people is feasible. This study will aid other units in developing their own virtual preoperative clinics. Future work should evaluate perioperative outcomes of delivering a face-to-face versus virtual clinic.