Nephrologists' perspectives and experiences with hospice among older adults with end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Hospice care leads to improved patient and family outcomes. Hospice use among older adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is markedly lower than among older adults with other serious illnesses, and the majority of those with ESKD who use hospice enroll in the last days of life. Here, our aim was to explore barriers to timely receipt of high-quality hospice care for older adults with ESKD. METHODS: Utilizing a qualitative study design, we conducted a secondary analysis focused on hospice, a theme that we identified in our larger overarching study that involved semi-structured interviews with 20 nephrologists in the United States focused on treatment decision-making in older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease. We analyzed the interview transcripts using emergent thematic analysis to develop an understanding of barriers to high-quality hospice. RESULTS: With a couple notable exceptions, nephrologists voiced general support for the concept of hospice, but few recalled patients of theirs who had received hospice. Nephrologists' interviews revealed two interrelated contributors to the lack of timely access to high-quality hospice care for seriously ill older adults with ESKD: (1) nephrologists view dialysis and hospice as mutually exclusive models of care; (2) nephrologists feel unsure who should manage hospice care for patients with ESKD. The first contributor was rooted in nephrologists' narrow vision of when to consider hospice (informed, in part, by policy barriers) and, in a couple of cases, strong discomfort with hospice. The second stemmed from nephrologists' belief that neither they nor hospice are adequately prepared to provide hospice care for ESKD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, in addition to Medicare policy change, nephrologists need to receive more training in primary palliative care skills including in indications for hospice, initiating conversations about hospice with patients, and collaborating with hospice clinicians to care for these vulnerable patients.

Fellowship-trained physicians who let their geriatric medicine certification lapse: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Only 62.6% of fellowship-trained and American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM)-certified geriatricians maintain their specialty certification in geriatric medicine, the lowest rate among all internal medicine subspecialties and the only subspecialty in which physicians maintain their internal medicine certification at higher rates than their specialty certification. This study aims to better understand underlying issues related to the low rate of maintaining geriatric medicine certification in order to inform geriatric workforce development strategies. METHODS: Eighteen-item online survey of internists who completed a geriatric medicine fellowship, earned initial ABIM certification in geriatric medicine between 1999 and 2009, and maintained certification in internal medicine (and/or another specialty but not geriatric medicine). Survey domains: demographics, issues related to maintaining geriatric medicine certification, professional identity, and current professional duties. RESULTS: 153/723 eligible completed surveys (21.5% response). Top reasons for not maintaining geriatric medicine certification were time (56%), cost of maintenance of certification (MOC) (45%), low Medicare reimbursement for geriatricians' work (32%), and no employer requirement to maintain geriatric medicine certification (31%). Though not maintaining geriatric medicine certification, 68% reported engaging in professional activities related to geriatric medicine. Reflecting on career decisions, 56% would again complete geriatric medicine fellowship, 21% would not, and 23% were unsure. 54% considered recertifying in geriatric medicine. 49% reported flexible MOC assessment options would increase likelihood of maintaining certification. CONCLUSIONS: The value proposition of geriatric medicine certification needs strengthening. Geriatric medicine leaders must develop strategies and tactics to reduce attrition of geriatricians by enhancing the value of geriatric medicine expertise to key stakeholders.

Looking back, moving forward: A practical guide to implementing the updated ACGME geriatric medicine Milestones 2.0.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) developed the Milestones as a tool to aid trainee assessment based on the framework of the six core competencies of practice. Variability in the interpretation and application of the original Milestones prompted the ACGME to convene work groups within the different specialties and subspecialties to update the Milestones. The Geriatric Medicine work group was convened in 2019 with the goal of clarifying and simplifying the language of the Milestones, revising content to be specific to geriatrics, and developing supplemental resources to aid in implementation and use. We suggest using a practical, four-step process to implement the updated Milestones, called the Milestones 2.0, in fellowship programs by: (1) training faculty in the use of the Milestones 2.0, including an overview of the background and updates, (2) mapping the Milestones 2.0 to existing assessments, (3) educating fellows about the Milestones 2.0 and (4) presenting and discussing the Milestones 2.0 at Clinical Competency Committee meetings. This systematic approach promotes the development of a shared mental model for trainee assessments.

Breaking the Link Between Enrollment in Hospice and Discontinuation of Dialysis.

This Viewpoint discusses Medicare coverage regarding hospice care for patients receiving dialysis at the end of life.

"Captive by the Uncertainty"-Experiences with Anticipatory Guidance for People Living with Dementia and Their Caregivers at a Specialty Dementia Clinic.

BACKGROUND: After a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, people living with dementia (PWD) and caregivers wonder what disease trajectory to expect and how to plan for functional and cognitive decline. This qualitative study aimed to identify patient and caregiver experiences receiving anticipatory guidance about dementia from a specialty dementia clinic. OBJECTIVE: To examine PWD and caregiver perspectives on receiving anticipatory guidance from a specialty dementia clinic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with PWD, and active and bereaved family caregivers, recruited from a specialty dementia clinic. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and systematically summarized. Thematic analysis identified anticipatory guidance received from clinical or non-clinical sources and areas where respondents wanted additional guidance. RESULTS: Of 40 participants, 9 were PWD, 16 were active caregivers, and 15 were bereaved caregivers. PWD had a mean age of 75 and were primarily male (n = 6/9); caregivers had a mean age of 67 and were primarily female (n = 21/31). Participants felt they received incomplete or "hesitant" guidance on prognosis and expected disease course via their clinicians and filled the gap with information they found via the internet, books, and support groups. They appreciated guidance on behavioral, safety, and communication issues from clinicians, but found more timely and advance guidance from other non-clinical sources. Guidance on legal and financial planning was primarily identified through non-clinical sources. CONCLUSION: PWD and caregivers want more information about expected disease course, prognosis, and help planning after diagnosis. Clinicians have an opportunity to improve anticipatory guidance communication and subsequent care provision.

Virtual Interinstitutional Palliative Care Consultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City.

Context: Amid the COVID-19 surge in New York City, the need for palliative care was highlighted. Virtual consultation was introduced to expand specialist-level care to meet demand. Objectives: To examine the outcomes of COVID-19 patients who received virtual palliative care consultation from outside institutions. Design: This is a retrospective case series. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were 34 patients who received virtual palliative care consultation between April 13, 2020, and June 14, 2020. Measurements: Follow-up frequency and duration, code status change, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST), and multidisciplinary involvement. Results: Twenty-eight patients (82.3%) were in the intensive care unit and 29 patients (85.3%) were on at least two LSTs. Fifteen patients (44.1%) died in the hospital, 9 patients (26.4%) were discharged alive, and 10 patients (29.4%) were signed off. The median frequency of visits was 4.5 (IQR 6) over 11 days follow-up (IQR 17). Code status change was more frequent in deceased patients. LSTs were withdrawn in eight patients (23.5%). Conclusions: Virtual palliative care consultation was feasible during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A single center evaluation of applicant experiences in virtual interviews across eight internal medicine subspecialty fellowship programs.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most graduate medical education (GME) training programs conducted virtual interviews for prospective trainees during the 2020-2021 application cycle. Many internal medicine (IM) subspecialty fellowship programs hosted virtual interviews for the first time with little published data to guide best practices.To evaluate how IM subspecialty fellowship applicants perceived the virtual interview day experience.We designed a 38-item questionnaire that was sent via email to applicants in eight IM subspecialty programs at a single tertiary academic medical center (University of California, San Francisco) from September-November, 2020.Seventy-five applicants completed the survey (75/244, 30.7%), including applicants from all eight fellowship programs. Most survey respondents agreed that the length of the virtual interview day (mean = 6.4 hours) was long enough to gather the information they needed (n = 65, 86.7%) and short enough to prevent fatigue (n = 55, 73.3%). Almost all survey respondents agreed that they could adequately assess the clinical experience (n = 71, 97.3%), research opportunities (n = 72, 98.6%), and program culture (n = 68, 93.2%). Of the respondents who attended a virtual educational conference, most agreed it helped to provide a sense of the program's educational culture (n = 20, 66.7%). Areas for improvement were identified, with some survey respondents reporting that the virtual interview day was too long (n = 11) or that they would have preferred to meet more fellows (n = 10).Survey respondents indicated that the virtual interview was an adequate format to learn about fellowship programs. These findings can inform future virtual interviews for GME training programs.

Evaluation of Time to Benefit of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Adults Aged 50 to 75 Years: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Guidelines recommend targeting preventive interventions toward older adults whose life expectancy is greater than the intervention's time to benefit (TTB). The TTB for statin therapy is unknown. Objective: To conduct a survival meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of statins to determine the TTB for prevention of a first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in adults aged 50 to 75 years. Data Sources: Studies were identified from previously published systematic reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and US Preventive Services Task Force) and a search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar for subsequently published studies until February 1, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of statins for primary prevention focusing on older adults (mean age >55 years). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently abstracted survival data for the control and intervention groups. Weibull survival curves were fit, and a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled absolute risk reductions (ARRs) between control and intervention groups each year. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were applied to determine time to ARR thresholds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for a first MACE, as defined by each trial. There were broad similarities in the definition of MACE across trials, with all trials including myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Eight trials randomizing 65 383 adults (66.3% men) were identified. The mean age ranged from 55 to 69 years old and the mean length of follow-up ranged from 2 to 6 years. Only 1 of 8 studies showed that statins decreased all-cause mortality. The meta-analysis results suggested that 2.5 (95% CI, 1.7-3.4) years were needed to avoid 1 MACE for 100 patients treated with a statin. To prevent 1 MACE for 200 patients treated (ARR = 0.005), the TTB was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.0-1.7) years, whereas the TTB to avoid 1 MACE for 500 patients treated (ARR = 0.002) was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0) years. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that treating 100 adults (aged 50-75 years) without known cardiovascular disease with a statin for 2.5 years prevented 1 MACE in 1 adult. Statins may help to prevent a first MACE in adults aged 50 to 75 years old if they have a life expectancy of at least 2.5 years. There is no evidence of a mortality benefit.

Caring for Unbefriended Older Adults and Adult Orphans: A Clinician Survey.

Objectives: Unbefriended older adults are those who lack the capacity to make medical decisions and do not have a completed advance directive that can guide treatment decisions or a surrogate decision maker. Adult orphans are those who retain medical decision-making capacity but are at risk of becoming unbefriended due to lack of a completed advance health care directive and lack of a surrogate decision maker. In a follow-up to the 2016 American Geriatrics Society (AGS) position statement on unbefriended older adults, we examined clinicians' experiences in caring for unbefriended older adults and adult orphans.Methods: Clinicians recruited through the AGS (N = 122) completed an online survey about their experiences with unbefriended older adults regarding the perceived frequency of contact, clinical concerns, practice strategies, and terminology; and also with adult orphans regarding the perceived frequency of contact, methods of identification, and terminology.Results: Almost all inpatient (95.9%) and outpatient (86.4%) clinicians in this sample encounter unbefriended older adults at least quarterly and 92.2% of outpatient clinicians encounter adult orphans at least quarterly. Concerns about safety (95.9%), medication self-management (90.4%), and advance care planning (86.3%) bring unbefriended older adults to outpatient clinicians' attention "sometimes" to "frequently." Prolonged hospital stays (87.7%) and delays in transitioning to end-of-life care (85.7%) bring unbefriended older adults to inpatient clinicians' attention "sometimes" to "frequently." Clinicians apply a wide range of practice strategies to these populations. Participants suggested alternative terminology to replace "unbefriended" and "adult orphan."Conclusions: This study suggests that unbefriended older adults are frequently encountered in geriatrics practice, both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and that there is widespread awareness of adult orphans in the outpatient setting. Clinicians' awareness of both groups suggests avenues for intervention and prevention.Clinical Implications: Health care professionals in geriatric settings will likely encounter older adults in need of advocates. Clinicians, attorneys, and policymakers should collaborate to improve early detection and to meet the needs of this vulnerable population.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

AGS Position Statement: Resource Allocation Strategies and Age-Related Considerations in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately, from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these needs have focused attention on how resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion, inappropriately disfavoring older adults. This statement represents the official policy position of the American Geriatrics Society (AGS). It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations to consider when developing strategies for allocating scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. Members of the AGS Ethics Committee collaborated with interprofessional experts in ethics, law, nursing, and medicine (including geriatrics, palliative care, emergency medicine, and pulmonology/critical care) to conduct a structured literature review and examine relevant reports. The resulting recommendations defend a particular view of distributive justice that maximizes relevant clinical factors and deemphasizes or eliminates factors placing arbitrary, disproportionate weight on advanced age. The AGS positions include (1) avoiding age per se as a means for excluding anyone from care; (2) assessing comorbidities and considering the disparate impact of social determinants of health; (3) encouraging decision makers to focus primarily on potential short-term (not long-term) outcomes; (4) avoiding ancillary criteria such as "life-years saved" and "long-term predicted life expectancy" that might disadvantage older people; (5) forming and staffing triage committees tasked with allocating scarce resources; (6) developing institutional resource allocation strategies that are transparent and applied uniformly; and (7) facilitating appropriate advance care planning. The statement includes recommendations that should be immediately implemented to address resource allocation strategies during COVID-19, aligning with AGS positions. The statement also includes recommendations for post-pandemic review. Such review would support revised strategies to ensure that governments and institutions have equitable emergency resource allocation strategies, avoid future discriminatory language and practice, and have appropriate guidance to develop national frameworks for emergent resource allocation decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1136-1142, 2020.