Establishing and sustaining an acute care for elders unit: An incremental journey to success.

Acute Care for Elders (ACE) units reduce hospital-associated delirium, functional decline, and lengths of stay. However, establishing and sustaining such units have proven difficult. There are only 43 ACE units among the >3500 hospitals in the United States. This study describes an iterative quality improvement process, which allowed us to establish and sustain an ACE unit care model in a modern academic hospital. This continuous process was centered on implementing the key principles of the ACE unit model of care: patient-centered care assessments, medical care review, specialized prepared environment, early mobilization, physical therapy, and early planning for discharge to home. Quality of care and patient outcomes data for older adults admitted to our ACE unit includes mortality index (observed/expected) consistently <1 (FY22 = 0.86), 30-day readmission rate of <10% (FY22 9.31%), and length of stay index of ~1 (FY22 1.07). We describe how work on our ACE unit has led to hospital-wide initiatives, including dementia-friendly hospital certification. Our hope is that others can use this process to enhance the dissemination of the ACE unit model of care.

Evaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves discussing a person's goals, values, and preferences; it is particularly important for persons living with dementia (PLWD) given that dementia is incurable and progressive. To ensure results that will impact real-world practices, ACP outcome measures must be psychometrically strong, meaningful to key partners, and pragmatic to collect. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of outcome measures utilized in ACP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling PLWD or their care partners and evaluated their pragmatic characteristics. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed ACP RCTs enrolling PLWD or their care partners from 2011 to 2021. We abstracted characteristics of primary and secondary outcome measures, including pragmatic characteristics using an adapted Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale and ACP outcome domains using the standardized ACP Outcome Framework (i.e., process, action, healthcare, or quality of care). RESULTS: We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. Twenty-four (23%) outcome measures were highly pragmatic, the majority of which (67%) reflected healthcare outcome measures. Sixty-one (59%) outcomes were assessed as highly relevant to PLWD or their care partners. Only 20% (n = 21) of outcome measures were embedded into clinical practice. Most (62%) RCTs were conducted in nursing homes, and 33% were focused PLWD with advanced stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs testing ACP interventions to support PLWD, only 23% of outcome measures were highly pragmatic, and most of these measured healthcare utilizations. Outcome assessments were rarely integrated into the EHR during routine clinical care. New outcome measures that address the lived experience of PLWD and their care partners plus have high pragmatic characteristics are needed for embedded pragmatic clinical trials.

Geriatrics Scholarly Concentration Programs Among U.S. Medical Schools.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe geriatric scholarly concentration programs (GSCPs) among U.S. medical schools. DESIGN: Survey and interview. SETTING: Allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the United States. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We used a systematic internet search, forum postings, and word of mouth to identify all U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools with existing GSCPs. GSCP directors completed an online survey. We conducted interviews with key faculty of two representative programs. MEASUREMENTS: GSCP size, goals, duration of activity, requirements, funding sources, and student outcomes. RESULTS: Nine GSCPs were identified, and eight responded to the survey. The number of current medical student participants ranged from 0 to 28, with a mean cohort size of 23. All programs included the following components: formal mentoring, clinical experiences in geriatric medicine beyond the standard medical school curriculum, and research. Half required students to complete an independent research project. GSCPs reported challenges, including low student interest, lack of availability of faculty mentors, and budget constraints; however, student satisfaction was high. Among three programs that reported on the residency matches of their graduates, half matched into a residency with a geriatric subspecialty training option. CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. medical schools, there are few GSCPs. The GSCP model may help compensate for limited exposure to geriatric competencies in the standard medical school curriculum for a subset of interested students and may increase interest in geriatrics subspecialty training.