A three-goal model for patients with multimorbidity: A qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: To meet the challenge of multimorbidity in decision making, a switch from a disease-oriented to a goal-oriented approach could be beneficial for patients and clinicians. More insight about the concept and the implementation of this approach in clinical practice is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop conceptual descriptions of goal-oriented care by examining the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and clinical geriatricians (CGs), and how the concept relates to collaborative communication and shared decision making with elderly patients with multimorbidity. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with GPs and CGs were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians distinguished disease- or symptom-specific goals, functional goals and a new type of goals, which we labelled as fundamental goals. "Fundamental goals" are goals specifying patient's priorities in life, related to their values and core relationships. These fundamental goals can be considered implicitly or explicitly in decision making or can be ignored. Reasons to explicate goals are the potential mismatch between medical standards and patient preferences and the need to know individual patient values in case of multimorbidity, including the management in acute situations. CONCLUSION: Based on the perspectives of clinicians, we expanded the concept of goal-oriented care by identifying a three-level goal hierarchy. This model could facilitate collaborative goal-setting for patients with multiple long-term conditions in clinical practice. Future research is needed to refine and validate this model and to provide specific guidance for medical training and practice.

Assessment of goals and priorities in patients with a chronic condition: a secondary quantitative analysis of determinants across 11 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of patient characteristics, patient-professional engagement, communication and context on the probability that healthcare professionals will discuss goals or priorities with older patients. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2014 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults. SETTING: 11 western countries. SUBJECTS: Community-dwelling adults, aged 55 or older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Assessment of goals and priorities. RESULTS: The final sample size consisted of 17,222 respondents, 54% of whom reported an assessment of their goals and priorities (AGP) by healthcare professionals. In logistic regression model 1, which was used to analyse the entire population, the determinants found to have moderate to large effects on the likelihood of AGP were information exchange on stress, diet or exercise, or both. Country (living in Sweden) and continuity of care (no regular professional or organisation) had moderate to large negative effects on the likelihood of AGP. In model 2, which focussed on respondents who experienced continuity of care, country and information exchange on stress and lifestyle were the main determinants of AGP, with comparable odds ratios to model 1. Furthermore, a professional asking questions also increased the likelihood of AGP. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity of care and information exchange is associated with a higher probability of AGP, while people living in Sweden are less likely to experience these assessments. Further study is required to determine whether increasing information exchange and professionals asking more questions may improve goal setting with older patients. Key points A patient goal-oriented approach can be beneficial for older patients with chronic conditions or multimorbidity; however, discussing goals with these patients is not a common practice. The likelihood of discussing goals varies by country, occurring most commonly in the USA, and least often in Sweden. Country-level differences in continuity of care and questions asked by a regularly visited professional affect the goal discussion probability. Patient characteristics, including age, have less impact than expected on the likelihood of sharing goals.

Collaborative goal setting with elderly patients with chronic disease or multimorbidity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is challenging to use shared decision-making with patients who have a chronic health condition or, especially, multimorbidity. A patient-goal-oriented approach can thus be beneficial. This study aims to identify and evaluate studies on the effects of interventions that support collaborative goal setting or health priority setting compared to usual care for elderly people with a chronic health condition or multimorbidity. METHODS: This systematic review was based on EPOC, PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pubmed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched systematically. The following eligibility criteria were applied: 1. Randomised (cluster) controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series or repeated measures study design; 2. Single intervention directed specifically at collaborative goal setting or health priority setting or a multifactorial intervention including these elements; 3. Study population of patients with multimorbidity or at least one chronic disease (mean age ± standard deviation (SD) incl. age 65). 4. Studies reporting on outcome measures reducible to outcomes for collaborative goal setting or health priority setting. RESULTS: A narrative analysis was performed. Eight articles describing five unique interventions, including four cluster randomised controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial, were identified. Four intervention studies, representing 904, 183, 387 and 1921 patients respectively, were multifactorial and showed statistically significant effects on the application of goal setting (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) goal setting subscale), the number of advance directives or the inclusion of goals in care plans. Explicit attention for goal setting or priority setting by a professional was a common element in these multifactorial interventions. One study, which implemented a single-factor intervention on 322 patients, did not have significant effects on doctor-patient agreement. All the studies had methodological concerns in varying degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative goal setting and/or priority setting can probably best be integrated in complex care interventions. Further research should determine the mix of essential elements in a multifactorial intervention to provide recommendations for daily practice. In addition, the necessity of methodological innovation and the application of mixed evaluation models must be highlighted to deal with the complexity of goal setting and/or priority setting intervention studies.