Use of the Patient-Identified Top Health Priority in Care Decision-making for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Davenport C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8554637 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide high-quality healthcare, it is essential to understand values that guide the healthcare decisions of older adults. We investigated the types of values that culturally diverse older adults incorporate in medical decision making.MethodsFocus groups were held with older adults who varied in cognitive status (mildly impaired versus those with normal cognition) and ethnicity (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). Investigators used a qualitative descriptive approach to analyze transcripts and identify themes.ResultsForty-nine individuals (49% with cognitive impairment; 51% Hispanic) participated. Participants expressed a wide range of values relating to individual factors, familial/cultural beliefs and expectations, balancing risks and benefits, receiving decisional support, and considering values other than their own. Participants emphasized that values are individual-specific, influenced by aging, and change throughout life course. Participants described barriers and facilitators that interfere with or promote value solicitation and incorporation during medical encounters.ConclusionStudy findings highlight that in older adults with various health experiences, cognitive and physical health status, and sociocultural backgrounds, medical decisions are influenced by a variety of values.Practical implicationsClinicians should take time to elicit, understand, and reassess the different types of values of older adults.
| S-EPMC8980797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWhile patients' health priorities should inform healthcare, strategies for doing so are lacking for patients with multiple conditions. We describe challenges to, and strategies that support, patients' priorities-aligned decision-making.DesignParticipant observation qualitative study.SettingPrimary care and cardiology practices in Connecticut.ParticipantsTen primary care clinicians, five cardiologists, and the Patient Priorities implementation team (four geriatricians, physician expert in clinician training, behavioral medicine expert). The patients discussed were ? 66 years with >3 chronic conditions and ?10 medications or saw ? two specialists.ExposureFollowing initial training and experience in providing Patient Priorities Care, the clinicians and Patient Priorities implementation team participated in 21 case-based, group discussions (10 face-to-face;11 telephonic). Using emergent learning (i.e. learning which arises from interactions among the participants), participants discussed challenges, posed solutions, and worked together to determine how to align care options with the health priorities of 35 patients participating in the Patient Priorities Care pilot.Main outcomesChallenges to, and strategies for, aligning decision-making with patient's health priorities.ResultsCategories of challenges discussed among participants included uncertainty, complexity, and multiplicity of problems and treatments; difficulty switching to patients' priorities as the focus of decision-making; and differing perspectives between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians. Strategies identified to support patient priorities-aligned decision-making included starting with one thing that matters most to each patient; conducting serial trials of starting, stopping, or continuing interventions; focusing on function (i.e. achieving patient's desired activities) rather than eliminating symptoms; basing communications, decision-making, and effectiveness on patients' priorities not solely on diseases; and negotiating shared decisions when there are differences in perspectives.ConclusionsThe discrete set of challenges encountered and the implementable strategies identified suggest that patient priorities-aligned decision-making in the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions is feasible, albeit complicated. Findings require replication in additional settings and determination of their effect on patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6557523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the effects of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). A pragmatic trial evaluated the effects of the SDMMCC intervention, existing of SDM training for nine geriatricians in two hospitals and a preparatory tool for patients. A prospective pre-intervention post-intervention multi-center clinical study was conducted in which an usual care group of older patients with MCC and their informal caregivers was included before the implementation of the intervention and a new cohort of patients and informal caregivers after the implementation of the intervention. SDM was observed using the OPTIONMCC during video-recorded consultations. Patient- and caregivers reported outcomes regarding their role in SDM, involvement, perceived SDM and decisional conflict were measured. The differences between groups regarding the level of observed SDM (OPTIONMCC) were analyzed with a mixed model analysis. Dichotomous patient-reported outcomes were analyzed with a logistic mixed model. From two outpatient geriatric clinics 216 patients with MCCs participated. The mean age was 77.3 years, and 56.3% of patients were female. No significant difference was found in the overall level of SDM as measured with the OPTIONMCC or in patient-reported outcomes. However, at item level the items discussing 'goals', 'options', and 'decision making' significantly improved after the intervention. The items discussing 'partnership' and 'evaluating the decision-making process' showed a significant decrease. Fifty-two percent of the patients completed the preparatory tool, but the results were only discussed in 12% of the consultations. This study provides scope for improvement of SDM in geriatrics. Engaging older adults with MCCs and informal caregivers in the decision making process should be an essential part of SDM training for geriatricians, beyond the SDM steps of explaining options, benefits and harms. More attention should be paid to the integration of preparatory work in the consultation.
| S-EPMC9976432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health care may be burdensome and of uncertain benefit for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Aligning health care with an individual's health priorities may improve outcomes and reduce burden. To evaluate whether patient priorities care (PPC) is associated with a perception of more goal-directed and less burdensome care compared with usual care (UC). Nonrandomized clinical trial with propensity adjustment conducted at 1 PPC and 1 UC site of a Connecticut multisite primary care practice that provides care to almost 15% of the state's residents. Participants included 163 adults aged 65 years or older who had 3 or more chronic conditions cared for by 10 primary care practitioners (PCPs) trained in PPC and 203 similar patients who received UC from 7 PCPs not trained in PPC. Participant enrollment occurred between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018; follow-up extended for up to 9 months (ended September 30, 2018). Patient priorities care, an approach to decision-making that includes patients' identifying their health priorities (ie, specific health outcome goals and health care preferences) and clinicians aligning their decision-making to achieve these health priorities. Primary outcomes included change in patients' Older Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (O-PACIC), CollaboRATE, and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores; electronic health record documentation of decision-making based on patients' health priorities; medications and self-management tasks added or stopped; and diagnostic tests, referrals, and procedures ordered or avoided. Of the 366 patients, 235 (64.2%) were female and 350 (95.6%) were white. Compared with the UC group, the PPC group was older (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.6] vs 77.6 [7.6] years) and had lower physical and mental health scores. At follow-up, PPC participants reported a 5-point greater decrease in TBQ score than those who received UC (ß [SE], -5.0 [2.04]; P = .01) using a weighted regression model with inverse probability of PCP assignment weights; no differences were seen in O-PACIC or CollaboRATE scores. Health priorities-based decisions were mentioned in clinical visit notes for 108 of 163 (66.3%) PPC vs 0 of 203 (0%) UC participants. Compared with UC patients, PPC patients were more likely to have medications stopped (weighted comparison, 52.0% vs 33.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.95) and less likely to have self-management tasks (57.5% vs 62.1%; AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84) and diagnostic tests (80.8% vs 86.4%; AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) ordered. This study's findings suggest that patient priorities care may be associated with reduced treatment burden and unwanted health care. Care aligned with patients' priorities may be feasible and effective for older adults with MCCs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03600389.
| S-EPMC6784811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDecisions for older adults (aged ≥65 years) and their clinicians about whether to continue to screen for cancer are not easy. Many older adults who are frail or have limited life expectancy or comorbidities continue to be screened for cancer despite guidelines suggesting they should not; furthermore, many older adults have limited knowledge of the potential harms of continuing to be screened.ObjectiveTo summarize the patient-reported factors associated with older adults' decisions regarding screening for breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical cancer.Evidence reviewStudies were identified by searching databases from January 2000 to June 2020 and were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by 2 authors, and then all decisions were cross-checked and discussed where necessary. Data analysis was performed from September to December 2020.FindingsThe search yielded 2475 records, of which 21 unique studies were included. Nine studies were quantitative, 8 were qualitative, and 4 used mixed method designs. Of the 21 studies, 17 were conducted in the US, and 10 of 21 assessed breast cancer screening decisions only. Factors associated with decision-making were synthesized into 5 categories: demographic, health and clinical, psychological, physician, and social and system. Commonly identified factors associated with the decision to undergo screening included personal or family history of cancer, positive screening attitudes, routine or habit, to gain knowledge, friends, and a physician's recommendation. Factors associated with the decision to forgo screening included being older, negative screening attitudes, and desire not to know about cancer. Some factors had varying associations, including insurance coverage, living in a nursing home, prior screening experience, health problems, limited life expectancy, perceived cancer risk, risks of screening, family, and a physician's recommendation to stop.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough guidelines suggest incorporating life expectancy and health status to inform older adults' cancer screening decisions, older adults' ingrained beliefs about screening may run counter to these concepts. Communication strategies are needed that support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions by addressing underlying screening beliefs in context with their perceived and actual risk of developing cancer.
| S-EPMC8576581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectivesPerson-centered obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) care is a collaborative approach that is respectful of an individual's health priorities. Informed decision-making is essential to person-centered care, especially as patients age. In a feasibility study, we evaluated the effects of a new decision aid (Decide2Rest) on OSA treatment decision-making in older adults.MethodsPatients (aged ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed OSA were recruited from two health care systems and randomized either to Decide2Rest or to a control program. Postintervention outcomes included 1) Decisional Conflict Scale (0-100, where 0 = low and 100 = high conflict), which measures perceptions of uncertainty, whether decisions reflect what matters most to patients, and whether patients feel supported in decision-making; 2) Preparation for Decision-Making scale (0-100, where 0 = least and 100 most prepared); and 3) OSA knowledge (0-100, where 0 = poor and 100 = outstanding). Multivariable linear regression models examined relationships between Decide2Rest and outcomes (Decisional Conflict Scale, Preparation for Decision-Making, OSA knowledge).ResultsSeventy-three patients were randomized to Decide2Rest (n = 36; mean age, 69 years; 72% male) vs control (n = 37; mean age, 69 years; 70% male). Results from the regressions, controlling for study site, indicate that the Decide2Rest program resulted in less decisional conflict (20.5 vs 32.7 on the Decisional Conflict Scale; P = .014), more preparedness for decision-making (87.8 vs 66.2 on the Preparation for Decision-Making scale; P < .001), and greater OSA knowledge (75.1 vs 65.3 OSA knowledge score; P = .04) scores than in the control group.ConclusionsThe Decide2Rest program promotes person-centered OSA decision-making for older patients with newly diagnosed OSA. Future studies are needed to optimize implementation of the program.Clinical trial registrationRegistry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Name: Improving Older Adults' Decision-Making for OSAT (eDecide2Rest); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03138993; Identifier: NCT03138993.
| S-EPMC7853212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThere is increasing clinical and legal interest in discrepancies between decision-making ability and cognition in old age, a stage of life when decisions have major ramifications. We investigated the frequency and correlates of such discrepancies in non-demented older adults participating in a large community-based cohort study of aging, the Rush Memory and Aging Project.MethodsParticipants [n = 689, mean age 81.8 (SD 7.6), mean education 15.2 (SD 3.1), 76.8 % female and 93.3 % white] completed a measure of financial and healthcare decision making (DM) and a battery of 19 neuropsychological tests from which a composite measure of global cognition (COG) was derived.ResultsResults indicated that 23.9 % of the sample showed a significant discrepancy between DM and COG abilities. Of these, 12.9 % showed DM < COG, while 11.0 % showed DM > COG. Logistic regression models showed older age, being non-white, greater temporal discounting, and greater risk aversion were associated with higher odds of being in the DM < COG group. Being male was associated with higher odds of being in the DM > COG group. Education, income, depressive symptoms, and impulsivity were not associated with a discrepancy. Only demographic associations (age, sex, and race) remained significant in a fully adjusted model with terms included for all factors.ConclusionThese results support the consideration of decision making and cognition as potentially separate constructs.
| S-EPMC4654982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOver half of patients over age 65 in the US have multimorbidity, defined as having three or more chronic diseases, but most clinical research on chronic disease management focuses on single chronic diseases. An expert panel convened by the American Geriatrics Society has provided a framework of guiding principles for clinical decision-making in patients with multimorbidity. This resource describes a session for second-year medical students at the end of their preclinical curriculum, in which students practice using a framework for clinical decision-making for patients with multiple chronic diseases.MethodsIn this 90-minute small-group session, students work with faculty mentors to apply that framework to a hypothetical patient with multimorbidity. They consider patient preferences, review relevant evidence, estimate a prognosis, consider clinical feasibility, and devise a treatment plan that maximizes benefits, minimizes harm, and enhances quality of life.ResultsApproximately 180 students have completed the multimorbidity session. Outcomes data suggest that the session helps students master key concepts in management of the patient with multimorbidity.DiscussionPrior to entering the clinical arena, medical students need to develop foundational skills that have not historically been part of preclinical curricula, such as accurately estimating prognoses, eliciting goals of care, and understanding the limitations of evidence regarding treatment outcomes in older patients. This session, one in a series of case-based exercises designed to train preclinical medical students in core competencies for care of the older patient, is a useful tool for medical educators looking to enrich the geriatric content in preclinical curricula.
| S-EPMC6464446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) as experienced by older patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), informal caregivers and health professionals.MethodsA structured literature search was conducted with 5 databases. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed a quality assessment. The results from the included studies were summarized using a predefined taxonomy.ResultsOur search yielded 3838 articles. Twenty-eight studies, listing 149 perceived barriers and 67 perceived facilitators for SDM, were included. Due to poor health and cognitive and/or physical impairments, older patients with MCCs participate less in SDM. Poor interpersonal skills of health professionals are perceived as hampering SDM, as do organizational barriers, such as pressure for time and high turnover of patients. However, among older patients with MCCs, SDM could be facilitated when patients share information about personal values, priorities and preferences, as well as information about quality of life and functional status. Informal caregivers may facilitate SDM by assisting patients with decision support, although informal caregivers can also complicate the SDM process, for example, when they have different views on treatment or the patient's capability to be involved. Coordination of care when multiple health professionals are involved is perceived as important.ConclusionsAlthough poor health is perceived as a barrier to participate in SDM, the personal experience of living with MCCs is considered valuable input in SDM. An explicit invitation to participate in SDM is important to older adults. Health professionals need a supporting organizational context and good communication skills to devise an individualized approach for patient care.
| S-EPMC7866443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of 2 or more chronic conditions, is common among older adults with cardiovascular disease. These individuals are at increased risk for poor health outcomes and account for a large proportion of health care utilization. Clinicians are challenged with the heterogeneity of this population, the complexity of the treatment regimen, limited high-quality evidence, and fragmented health care systems. Each treatment recommended by a clinical practice guideline for a single cardiovascular disease might be rational, but the combination of all evidence-based recommendations can be impractical or even harmful to individuals with multimorbidity. These challenges can be overcome with a patient-centred approach that incorporates the individual's preferences, relevant evidence, the overall and condition-specific prognosis, clinical feasibility of treatments, and interactions with other treatments and coexisting chronic conditions. The ultimate goal is to maximize benefits and minimize harms by optimizing adherence to the most essential treatments, while acknowledging trade-offs between treatments for different health conditions. It might be necessary to discontinue therapies that are not essential or potentially harmful to decrease the risk of drug-drug and drug-disease interactions from polypharmacy. A decision to initiate, withhold, or stop a treatment should be on the basis of the time horizon to benefits vs the individual's prognosis. In this review, we illustrate how cardiologists and general practitioners can adopt a patient-centred approach to focus on the aspects of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular health that have the greatest effect on functioning and quality of life in older adults with cardiovascular disease and multimorbidity.
| S-EPMC5003648 | biostudies-literature