Background

Little is known about how providers communicate recommendations when scientific uncertainty exists.

Objectives

To compare provider recommendations to those in the scientific literature, with a focus on whether uncertainty was communicated.

Design

Qualitative (inductive systematic content analysis) and quantitative analysis of previously collected audio-recorded provider-patient office visits.

Participants

Sixty-one providers and a socio-economically diverse convenience sample of 603 of their patients from outpatient community- and academic-based primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine provider offices in Southern California.

Main measures

Comparison of provider information-giving about vitamin D to professional guidelines and scientific information for which conflicting recommendations or insufficient scientific evidence exists; certainty with which information was conveyed.

Results

Ninety-two (15.3 %) of 603 visit discussions touched upon issues related to vitamin D testing, management and benefits. Vitamin D deficiency screening was discussed with 23 (25 %) patients, the definition of vitamin D deficiency with 21 (22.8 %), the optimal range for vitamin D levels with 26 (28.3 %), vitamin D supplementation dosing with 50 (54.3 %), and benefits of supplementation with 46 (50 %). For each of the professional guidelines/scientific information examined, providers conveyed information that deviated from professional guidelines and the existing scientific evidence. Of 166 statements made about vitamin D in this study, providers conveyed 160 (96.4 %) with certainty, without mention of any equivocal or contradictory evidence in the scientific literature. No uncertainty was mentioned when vitamin D dosing was discussed, even when recommended dosing was higher than guideline recommendations.

Conclusions and relevance

Providers convey the vast majority of information and recommendations about vitamin D with certainty, even though the scientific literature contains inconsistent recommendations and declarations of inadequate evidence. Not communicating uncertainty blurs the contrast between evidence-based recommendations and those without evidence. Providers should explore best practices for involving patients in decision-making by acknowledging the uncertainty behind their recommendations.

BACKGROUND/PROBLEM: Advance care planning (ACP) pragmatic trials are needed. PROPOSED SOLUTION: We determined key system-level activities to implement ACP interventions for a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial. We identified patients with serious illness from 50 primary care clinics across three University of California health systems using a validated algorithm. If patients lacked documented ACP within the last 3 years, they were eligible for an intervention: (Arm 1) an advance directive (AD); (Arm 2) AD + PREPAREforYourCare.org; (Arm 3) AD + PREPARE + lay health navigator outreach. Triggered by an appointment, we mailed and sent interventions through automated electronic health record (EHR) messaging. We collaborated with patients/caregivers, clinicians, payors, and national/health system leader advisors. We are currently finalizing 24 months follow-up data. OUTCOMES/METHODS: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks to track secular trends and implementation efforts. KEY MESSAGE/RESULTS: Required multisite, system-level activities: 1) obtaining leadership, legal/privacy, and EHR approvals; 2) standardizing ACP documentation; 3) providing clinician education; 3) validating an automated serious illness identification algorithm; 4) standardizing ACP messaging with input from over 100 key advisors; 5) monitoring secular trends (e.g., COVID); and 6) standardizing ACP workflows (e.g., scanned ADs). Of 8707 patients with serious illness, 6883 were eligible for an intervention. Across all arms, 99% received the mailed intervention, 78.3% had an active patient portal (64.2% opened intervention), and 90.5% of arm three patients (n = 2243) received navigator outreach. LESSONS LEARNED: Implementing a multisite health system-wide ACP program and pragmatic trial, with automated EHR-based cohort identification and intervention delivery, requires a high level of multidisciplinary key advisor engagement, standardization, and monitoring. These activities provide guidance for the implementation of other large-scale, population-based ACP efforts.

The number of hospitalized patients receiving treatment perceived to be futile is not insignificant. Blood products are valuable resources that are donated to help others in need. We aimed to quantify the amount of blood transfused into patients who were receiving treatment that the critical care physician treating them perceived to be futile. During a 3-month period, critical care physicians in 5 adult intensive care units completed a daily questionnaire to identify patients perceived as receiving futile treatment. Of 1136 critically ill patients, physicians assessed 123 patients (11%) as receiving futile treatment. Fifty-nine (48%) of the 123 patients received blood products after they were assessed to be receiving futile treatment: 242 units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) (7.6% of all PRBC units transfused into critical care patients during the 3-month study period); 161 (9.9%) units of plasma, 137 (12.1%) units of platelets, and 21 (10.5%) units of cryoprecipitate. Explicit guidelines on the use of blood products should be developed to ensure that the use of this precious resource achieves meaningful goals.

Objective

When used to prolong life without achieving a benefit meaningful to the patient, critical care is often considered "futile." Although futile treatment is acknowledged as a misuse of resources by many, no study has evaluated its opportunity cost, that is, how it affects care for others. Our objective was to evaluate delays in care when futile treatment is provided.

Design

For 3 months, we surveyed critical care physicians in five ICUs to identify patients that clinicians identified as receiving futile treatment. We identified days when an ICU was full and contained at least one patient who was receiving futile treatment. For those days, we evaluated the number of patients waiting for ICU admission more than 4 hours in the emergency department or more than 1 day at an outside hospital.

Setting

One health system that included a quaternary care medical center and an affiliated community hospital.

Patients

Critically ill patients.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Boarding time in the emergency department and waiting time on the transfer list. Thirty-six critical care specialists made 6,916 assessments on 1,136 patients of whom 123 were assessed to receive futile treatment. A full ICU was less likely to contain a patient receiving futile treatment compared with an ICU with available beds (38% vs 68%, p < 0.001). On 72 (16%) days, an ICU was full and contained at least one patient receiving futile treatment. During these days, 33 patients boarded in the emergency department for more than 4 hours after admitted to the ICU team, nine patients waited more than 1 day to be transferred from an outside hospital, and 15 patients canceled the transfer request after waiting more than 1 day. Two patients died while waiting to be transferred.

Conclusions

Futile critical care was associated with delays in care to other patients.

Dementia is a chronic disease that requires medical and social services to provide high-quality care and prevent complications. As a result of time constraints in practice, lack of systems-based approaches, and poor integration of community-based organizations (CBOs), the quality of care for dementia is poorer than that for other diseases that affect older persons. The University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Alzheimers and Dementia Care (UCLA ADC) program partners with CBOs to provide comprehensive, coordinated, patient-centered care for individuals with Alzheimers disease and other dementias. The goals of the program are to maximize function, independence, and dignity; minimize caregiver strain and burnout; and reduce unnecessary costs. The UCLA ADC program consists of five core components: recruitment and a dementia registry, structured needs assessments of individuals in the registry and their caregivers, creation and implementation of individualized dementia care plans based on needs assessments and input from the primary care physicians, monitoring and revising care plans as needed, and around-the-clock access for assistance and advice. The program uses a comanagement model with a nurse practitioner Dementia Care Manager working with primary care physicians and CBOs. Based on the first 150 individuals served, the most common recommendations in the initial care plans were referrals to support groups (73%) and Alzheimers Association Safe Return (73%), caregiver training (45%), and medication adjustment (41%). The program will be evaluated on its ability to achieve the triple aim of better care for individuals, better health for populations, and lower costs.

Background

Factors leading to inappropriate critical care, that is treatment that should not be provided because it does not offer the patient meaningful benefit, have not been rigorously characterized.

Objective

We explored medical record documentation about patients who received inappropriate critical care and those who received appropriate critical care to examine factors associated with the provision of inappropriate treatment.

Design

Medical records were abstracted from 123 patients who were assessed as receiving inappropriate treatment and 66 patients who were assessed as receiving appropriate treatment but died within six months of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We used mixed methods combining qualitative analysis of medical record documentation with multivariable analysis to examine the relationship between patient and communication factors and the receipt of inappropriate treatment, and present these within a conceptual model.

Setting

One academic health system.

Results

Medical records revealed 21 themes pertaining to prognosis and factors influencing treatment aggressiveness. Four themes were independently associated with patients receiving inappropriate treatment according to physicians. When decision making was not guided by physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.76, confidence interval [95% CI] 1.21-11.70) or was delayed by patient/family (OR 4.52, 95% CI 1.69-12.04), patients were more likely to receive inappropriate treatment. Documented communication about goals of care (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.84) and patient's preferences driving decision making (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.27) were associated with lower odds of receiving inappropriate treatment.

Conclusions

Medical record documentation suggests that inappropriate treatment occurs in the setting of communication and decision-making patterns that may be amenable to intervention.

Objectives

To develop a process of goal-setting and measurement of goal attainment in a dementia care management program.

Design

Observational.

Setting

Dementia care management program in an urban academic medical center.

Participants

Persons with dementia (N=101) and their caregivers; nurse practitioner dementia care managers (N=5).

Intervention

Specification of a personalized health goal and action plan and measurement of goal attainment using goal attainment scaling in a clinical care visit.

Measurements

Goal attainment at 6 and 12 months; focus groups of 5 dementia care managers.

Results

Eighty-four percent of participant goals were nonmedical, 47% were related to quality of life, and 29% were caregiver support goals. Eighty-eight percent of participants felt that the goal they set was meaningful and 74% that the goal-setting process captured something different from usual care, and 85% found the process helpful in planning for future care. At 6 months, 74% of dyads had achieved or exceeded their expected level of goal attainment. Dementia care managers felt that the goal-setting process improved their understanding of what was most important to the patient, helped set expectations about disease progression and care needs, and provided positive reinforcement when goals were accomplished and an opportunity for revision when goals were not met.

Conclusion

Goal setting using goal attainment scaling can be incorporated into the care of persons with dementia to establish and attain person-centered goals. Research is needed to further develop personalized goal attainment as an outcome measure for dementia care. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2120-2127, 2018.

Objectives

To identify subsets of ambulatory care (outpatient only) quality indicators (QIs) associated with better survival and physical function outcomes.

Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting

Pooled data from the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE)-1 study, which measured quality of care using 140 care-process QIs, and the subsequent ACOVE-2 study, which reduced the QIs to 69 ambulatory care QIs.

Participants

Older adults receiving ambulatory care (N=1,015).

Measurements

To prioritize and reduce the QIs into subsets, an expert panel rated each of 69 ambulatory care QIs for the strength of the link between process and benefit, defined as direct trial evidence on older adults or high expectation of benefit if a trial were conducted in older adults. This resulted in three reduced QI sets, reflecting their intended benefit: 17 QIs for survival (ACOVE Quality for Survival (AQS)-17), five QIs to preserve function (AQF-5), and 16 QIs to improve quality-of-life related to physical health and symptoms (AQQ-16). Whether AQS-17 would predict 3-year survival was first tested in 1,015 pooled ACOVE-1 and ACOVE-2 participants. Second, whether AQF-5 (n=74) and AQQ-16 (n=359) would predict change in the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form Survey at 1 year was tested in the ACOVE-2 cohort. Control variables were age, function-based vulnerability, and comorbidity.

Results

Each 20-percentage-point increment in AQS-17 was associated with survival (hazard ratio (HR)=0.83, P=.01) up to 500 days but not thereafter. AQF-5, but not AQQ-16, predicted 1-year improvement in PCS score (1.13-points per 20%-point increment in AQF-5, P=.02).

Conclusion

Subsets of care processes can be linked with outcomes important to older adults. The AQS-17 and AQF-5 are potential tools for improving ambulatory care of older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Interventions are needed to promote utilization of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), an underused opportunity to perform screenings and plan individualized preventive health services. METHOD: Using remote practice redesign and electronic health record (EHR) support, we implemented the Practice-Tailored AWV intervention in 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) in 3 small community-based practices. The intervention combines EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches and resources. Outcomes included completion of AWV and fulfillment of recommended preventive services. RESULTS: At baseline the 3 practices had 1,513 Medicare patients with at least 1 visit in the past 12 months. AWV utilization went from 7% at baseline to 54% 8 months postintervention implementation; advance care planning increased 10.7% (from 7.9% to 18.6%); depression screening increased 16.3% (from 51.7% to 68.0%); and alcohol misuse screening increased 17.3% (from 42.6% to 59.9%). Every individual preventive health service was received more often by patients with an AWV than those without. At the patient level, fulfillment of all eligible preventive services (of a maximum of 12 evaluated) went from 47.5% to 53.8% (P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with AWVs completed a greater percentage of their total recommended preventive health services than those without an AWV. CONCLUSION: Virtual implementation of an intervention that combined EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches increased AWV and preventive services utilization in Medicare patients. Given the success of this intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic (when practices had many competing demands), greater consideration should be given to delivering future interventions virtually.

Medication reviews are recommended annually for older patients. A medication review is a discussion of a patient’s complete set of medications, but the actual content of a review is not well specified. The medical literature suggests that it is an exhaustive evaluation, but what physicians actually ask about their patients’ medication regimens has been little studied. To describe what physicians do when they review medications in the office setting. Qualitative content analysis of audio-taped encounters between 100 patients aged 65 and older and 28 primary care physicians in two health care systems in Sacramento, California. Physicians use a combination of non-mutually exclusive strategies when reviewing chronic medications that include: (1) efforts to obtain a complete list of patient medications (36% of visits), (2) discussion of a topic related to the management of each of a patient’s chronic medications (47% of visits), and (3) sequential discussion of the majority of a patient’s medications without intervening discussion (45% of visits). Of 10 medication management topics that were discussed in medication reviews, a mean of 1.5 topics (SD = 1.7, range 0–7) were mentioned for each medication, with efficacy and directions being most common. Physicians conducted a sequential discussion that included discussion of each of a patient’s medications in only 32% of visits. Comprehensive discussions about chronic medications are uncommon in routine practice. Practical conceptualization of what constitutes a physician-conducted medication review is needed.