Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women. METHODS: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms. RESULTS: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories: Innovating aging research and Alzheimer's care.

This perspective outlines the Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) at Johns Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Massachusetts, highlighting their roles in developing AI-based technologies for older adult care, particularly targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD). These National Institute on Aging (NIA) centers foster collaboration among clinicians, gerontologists, ethicists, business professionals, and engineers to create AI solutions. Key activities include identifying technology needs, stakeholder engagement, training, mentoring, data integration, and navigating ethical challenges. The objective is to apply these innovations effectively in real-world scenarios, including in rural settings. In addition, the AITC focuses on developing best practices for AI application in the care of older adults, facilitating pilot studies, and addressing ethical concerns related to technology development for older adults with cognitive impairment, with the ultimate aim of improving the lives of older adults and their caregivers. HIGHLIGHTS: Addressing the complex needs of older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires a comprehensive approach, integrating medical and social support. Current gaps in training, techniques, tools, and expertise hinder uniform access across communities and health care settings. Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies hold promise in transforming care for this demographic. Yet, transitioning these innovations from concept to marketable products presents significant challenges, often stalling promising advancements in the developmental phase. The Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) program, funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), presents a viable model. These Collaboratories foster the development and implementation of AI methods and technologies through projects aimed at improving care for older Americans, particularly those with AD, and promote the sharing of best practices in AI and technology integration. Why Does This Matter? The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) program's mission is to accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies for the betterment of older adults, especially those with dementia. By bridging scientific and technological expertise, fostering clinical and industry partnerships, and enhancing the sharing of best practices, this program can significantly improve the health and quality of life for older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults. METHODS: In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles. RESULTS: Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies. DISCUSSION: Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.

Reducing Overuse by Healthcare Systems: A Positive Deviance Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare in the USA is increasingly delivered by large healthcare systems that include one or more hospitals and associated outpatient practices. It is unclear what role healthcare systems play in driving or preventing overutilization of healthcare services in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To learn how high-value healthcare systems avoid overuse of services DESIGN: We identified "positive deviant" health systems using a previously constructed Overuse Index. These systems have much lower-than-average overuse of healthcare services. We confirmed that these health systems also delivered high-quality care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with executive leaders of these systems to validate a published framework for understanding drivers of overuse. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders at select healthcare systems in the USA. INTERVENTIONS: None APPROACH: We developed an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews. We iteratively developed a code book. Paired reviewers coded and reconciled each interview. We analyzed the interviews by applying constant comparative techniques. We mapped the emergent themes to provide the first empirical data to support a previously developed theoretical framework. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 15 leaders from 10 diverse healthcare systems. Consistent with important domains from the overuse framework, themes from our study support the role of clinicians and patients in avoiding overuse. The leaders described how they create a culture of professional practice and how they modify clinicians' attitudes to facilitate high-value practices. They also described how their patients view healthcare consumption and the characteristics of their patient populations allowed them to practice high-value medicine. They described the role of quality metrics, insurance plan ownership, and alternative payment model participation as encouraging avoidance of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative analysis of positive deviant health systems supports the framework that is in the published literature, although health system leaders also described their financial structures as another important factor for reducing overuse and encouraging high-value care delivery.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice. OBJECTIVE: To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment. DESIGN: National physician survey. PARTICIPANTS: US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care. MAIN MEASURES: Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings.

BACKGROUND: While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. KEY RESULTS: Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations.

Developing a sensor-based mobile application for in-home frailty assessment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty syndrome disproportionately affects older people, including 15% of non-nursing home population, and is known to be a strong predictor of poor health outcomes. There is a growing interest in incorporating frailty assessment into research and clinical practice, which may provide an opportunity to improve in home frailty assessment and improve doctor patient communication. METHODS: We conducted focus groups discussions to solicit input from older adult care recipients (non-frail, pre-frail, and frail), their informal caregivers, and medical providers about their preferences to tailor a mobile app to measure frailty in the home using sensor based technologies. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified three major themes: 1) perspectives of frailty; 2) perceptions of home based sensors; and 3) data management concerns. These relate to the participants' insight, attitudes and concerns about having sensor-based technology to measure frailty in the home. Our qualitative findings indicate that knowing frailty status is important and useful and would allow older adults to remain independent longer. Participants also noted concerns with data management and the hope that this technology would not replace in-person visits with their healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that study participants of each frailty status expressed high interest and acceptance of sensor-based technologies. Based on the qualitative findings of this study, sensor-based technologies show promise for frailty assessment of older adults with care needs. The main concerns identified related to the volume of data collected and strategies for responsible and secure transfer, reporting, and distillation of data into useful and timely care information. Sensor-based technologies should be piloted for feasibility and utility. This will inform the larger goal of helping older adults to maintain independence while tracking potential health declines, especially among the most vulnerable, for early detection and intervention.

Influence of Age, Health, and Function on Cancer Screening in Older Adults with Limited Life Expectancy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationship between cancer screening and life expectancy predictors, focusing on the influence of age versus health and function, in older adults with limited life expectancy. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study SETTING: National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: Three cohorts of adults 65+ enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare were constructed: women eligible for breast cancer screening (n = 2043); men eligible for prostate cancer screening (n = 1287); men and women eligible for colorectal cancer screening (n = 3759). MEASUREMENTS: We assessed 10-year mortality risk using 2011 NHATS data, then used claims data to assess 2-year prostate and breast cancer screening rates and 3-year colorectal cancer screening rates. Among those with limited life expectancy (10-year mortality risk > 50%), we stratified participants at each level of predicted mortality risk and split participants in each risk stratum by the median age. We assembled two sub-groups from these strata that were matched on predicted life expectancy: a "younger sub-group" with relatively poorer health/functional status and an "older sub-group" with relatively better health/functional status. We compared screening rates between sub-groups. RESULTS: For all three cancer screenings, the younger sub-groups (average ages 73.4-76.1) had higher screening rates than the older sub-groups (average ages 83.6-86.9); screening rates were 42.9% versus 34.2% for prostate cancer screening (p = 0.02), 33.6% versus 20.6% for breast cancer screening (p < 0.001), 13.1% versus 6.7% for colorectal cancer screening in women (p = 0.006), and 20.5% versus 12.1% for colorectal cancer screening in men (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Among older adults with limited life expectancy, those who are relatively younger with poorer health and functional status are over-screened for cancer at higher rates than those who are older with the same predicted life expectancy.

Examining Generalizability of Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Cessation of Screening Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Low Health Literacy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Many older adults receive unnecessary screening colonoscopies. We previously conducted a survey using a national online panel to assess older adults' preferences for how clinicians can discuss stopping screening colonoscopies. We sought to assess the generalizability of those results by comparing them to a sample of older adults with low health literacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Baltimore metropolitan area (low health literacy sample) and a national, probability-based online panel-KnowledgePanel (national sample). PARTICIPANTS: Adults 65+ with low health literacy measured using a single-question screen (low health literacy sample, n = 113) and KnowledgePanel members 65+ who completed survey about colorectal cancer screening (national sample, n = 441). MEASUREMENTS: The same survey was administered to both groups. Using the best-worst scaling method, we assessed relative preferences for 13 different ways to explain stopping screening colonoscopies. We used conditional logistic regression to quantify the relative preference for each explanation, where a higher preference weight indicates stronger preference. We analyzed each sample separately, then compared the two samples using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the likelihood ratio test to assess for overall differences between the two sets of preference weights, and the Wald test to assess differences in preference weights for each individual phrases. RESULTS: The responses from the two samples were highly correlated (Spearman's coefficient 0.92, p < 0.0001). The most preferred phrase to explain stopping screening colonoscopy was "Your other health issues should take priority" in both groups. The three least preferred options were also the same for both groups, with the least preferred being "The doctor does not give an explanation." The explanation that referred to "quality of life" was more preferred by the low health literacy group whereas explanations that mentioned "unlikely to benefit" and "high risk for harms" were more preferred by the national survey group (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among two different populations of older adults with different health literacy levels, the preferred strategies for clinicians to discuss stopping screening colonoscopies were highly correlated. Our results can inform effective communication about stopping screening colonoscopies in older adults across different health literacy levels.

Approaches to Risk Assessment Among Older Patients With Diabetes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A patient's prognosis and risk of adverse drug effects are important considerations for individualizing care of older patients with diabetes. This review summarizes the evidence for risk assessment and proposes approaches for clinicians in the context of current clinical guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Diabetes guidelines vary in their recommendations for how life expectancy should be estimated and used to inform the selection of glycemic targets. Readily available prognostic tools may improve estimation of life expectancy but require validation among patients with diabetes. Treatment decisions based on prognosis are difficult for clinicians to communicate and for patients to understand. Determining hypoglycemia risk involves assessing major risk factors; models to synthesize these factors have been developed. Applying risk assessment to individualize diabetes care is complex and currently relies heavily on clinician judgment. More research is need to validate structured approaches to risk assessment and determine how to incorporate them into patient-centered diabetes care.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.

Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Long-Term Life Expectancy: Results From a National Survey.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend incorporating long-term life expectancy to inform a number of decisions in primary care. We aimed to examine older adults' preferences for discussing life expectancy in a national sample. METHODS: We invited 1,272 older adults (aged 65 or older) from a national, probability-based online panel to participate in 2016. We presented a hypothetical patient with limited life expectancy who was not imminently dying. We asked participants if they were that patient, whether they would like to talk with the doctor about how long they may live, whether it was acceptable for the doctor to offer this discussion, whether they want the doctor to discuss life expectancy with family or friends, and when it should be discussed. RESULTS: The 878 participants (69.0% participation rate) had a mean age of 73.4 years. The majority, 59.4%, did not want to discuss how long they might live in the presented scenario. Within this group, 59.9% also did not think that the doctor should offer the discussion, and 87.7% also did not want the doctor to discuss life expectancy with family or friends. Fully 55.8% wanted to discuss life expectancy only if it were less than 2 years. Factors positively associated with wanting to have the discussion included higher educational level, believing that doctors can accurately predict life expectancy, and past experience with either a life-threatening illness or having discussed life expectancy of a loved one. Reporting that religion is important was negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of older adults did not wish to discuss life expectancy when we depicted a hypothetical patient with limited life expectancy. Many also did not want to be offered discussion, raising a dilemma for how clinicians may identify patients' preferences regarding this sensitive topic.

Older adults' perceptions and informational needs regarding frailty.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been recognized as an important medical syndrome in older adults. Growing literature supports the clinical application of frailty but US older adults' perceptions of frailty have not been explored. We aim to examine perceptions and informational needs about frailty among older adults. METHODS: This was a qualitative study involving focus groups of community-dwelling older adults with diverse age and frailty status. We explored participants' beliefs and knowledge about frailty and informational needs about frailty as a medical syndrome. RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 76.3. Of the 29 participants, 21 (72%) were female, and 21 (72%) were white. We identified three major themes: 1) Older adults' perceptions of frailty differed from the definition used in medical literature; they often perceived a psychological component to being frailty and some were skeptical of the syndromic definition based on multiple symptoms. 2) Compared to participants who were non-frail or pre-frail, participants who were frail were more receptive to discussing their frailty status with clinicians; 3) Participants wanted know about how to treat or prevent frailty and the risks associated with being frail. Many participants felt that these information can be conveyed without necessarily using the specific term "frail", which they perceived to have a negative connotation. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults, especially those who are frail, may be interested to discuss frailty as a medical syndrome. However, negative perceptions are associated with the term "frail" and may be a barrier to clinical application of frailty. Further research is needed to understand acceptable ways for communicating about frailty in clinical practice.

Prognosis communication with older patients with multimorbidity: Assessment after an educational intervention.

This study aimed to assess how internal medicine residents incorporated prognosis to inform clinical decisions and communicated prognosis in primary care visits with older patients with multimorbidity after an educational intervention, and resident and patient perspectives regarding these visits. Assessment used mixed-methods. The authors assessed the frequency and content of prognosis discussions through residents' self-report and qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded clinic visits. The authors assessed the residents' perceived effect of incorporating prognosis on patient care and patient relationship through a resident survey. The authors assessed the patients' perceived quality of communication and trust in physicians through a patient survey. The study included 21 clinic visits that involved 12 first-year residents and 21 patients. Residents reported incorporating patients' prognoses to inform clinical decisions in 13/21 visits and perceived positive effects on patient care (in 11/13 visits) and patient relationship (in 7/13 visits). Prognosis communication occurred in 9/21 visits by self-report, but only in six of these nine visits by content analysis of audio-recordings. Patient ratings were high regardless of whether or not prognosis was communicated. In summary, after training, residents often incorporated patients' prognoses to inform clinical decisions, but sometimes did so without communicating prognosis to the patients. Residents and patients reported positive perceptions regarding the visits.

Adjuvant radiation use in older women with early-stage breast cancer at Johns Hopkins.

PURPOSE: In 2004, The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines incorporated omission of radiation therapy after breast-conservation surgery in women ≥70 years old with stage I, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who plan to receive endocrine therapy. One study demonstrated wide variation in implementing this change across 13 NCCN institutions. We evaluated the practice pattern at our institution. METHODS: We identified women ≥70 years old treated at our institution from 2009 to 2014. We calculated radiation therapy omission rate in those meeting the guidelines. We explored associations between radiation therapy omission, year of diagnosis, and patient characteristics with Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 667 women met the inclusion criteria, and 117 (18 %) were candidates for radiation therapy omission. Mean age among the 117 was 76.3 years (Range: 70-95). Overall radiation therapy omission rate was 36.8 %, but varied greatly by year of diagnosis (Range: 7.7-54.5 %). This variation persisted after excluding women who did not receive endocrine therapy (Mean: 39.0 %, Range: 0.0-75.0 %). Factors associated with higher radiation therapy omission rates included older age and not having pathological nodal evaluation. The radiation therapy omission rate did not vary by race, tumor type, grade, or size. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the NCCN guideline has not been consistent at our institution. Our data suggest that other tools should be considered to apply the guidelines more consistently. We have implemented a quality improvement protocol that incorporates life expectancy estimate and geriatric assessment in women meeting the NCCN guideline at our institution.

Incorporating prognosis in the care of older adults with multimorbidity: description and evaluation of a novel curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis is a critical consideration in caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, or "multimorbidity". Clinicians are not adequately trained in this area. We describe an innovative curriculum that teaches internal medicine residents how to incorporate prognosis in the care of older adults with multimorbidity. METHODS: The curriculum includes three small-group sessions and a clinical exercise; it focuses on the assessment, communication, and application of prognosis to inform clinical decisions. The curriculum was implemented with 20 first-year residents at one university-based residency (intervention group). Fifty-two first-year residents from a separate residency affiliated with the same university served as controls. Evaluation included three components. A survey assessed acceptability. A pre/post survey assessed attitude, knowledge, and self-reported skills (Impact survey). Comparison of baseline and follow-up results used paired t-test and McNemar test; comparison of inter-group differences used t-test and Fisher's exact test. A retrospective, blinded pre/post chart review assessed documentation behavior; abstracted outcomes were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The curriculum was highly rated (4.5 on 5-point scale). Eighteen intervention group residents (90 %) and 29 control group residents (56 %) responded to the Impact survey. At baseline, there were no significant inter-group differences in any of the responses. The intervention group improved significantly in prognosis communication skills (5.2 to 6.6 on 9-point scale, p < 0.001), usage of evidence-based prognostic tools (1/18 to 14/18 responses, p < 0.001), and prognostic accuracy (1/18 to 9/18 responses, p = 0.005). These responses were significantly different from the control group at follow-up. Of 71 charts reviewed in each group, prognosis documentation in the intervention group increased from 1/25 charts (4 %) at baseline to 8/46 charts (17 %) at follow-up (p = 0.15). No prognosis documentation was identified in the control group at either time point. Inter-group difference was significant at follow-up (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: We developed and implemented a novel prognosis curriculum that had significant short-term impact on the residents' knowledge and communication skills as compared to a control group. This innovative curriculum addresses an important educational gap in incorporating prognosis in the care of older adults with multimorbidity.