Leveraging an Electronic Health Record Patient Portal to Help Patients Formulate Their Health Care Goals: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Pilot Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Persons with multiple chronic conditions face complex medical regimens and clinicians may not focus on what matters most to these patients who vary widely in their health priorities. Patient Priorities Care is a facilitator-led process designed to identify patients' priorities and align decision-making and care, but the need for a facilitator has limited its widespread adoption. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to design and test mechanisms for patients to complete a self-directed process for identifying priorities and providing their priorities to clinicians. METHODS: The study involved patients of at least 65 years of age at 2 family medicine practices with 5 physicians each. We first tested 2 versions of an interactive website and asked patients to bring their results to their visit. We then tested an Epic previsit questionnaire derived from the website's questions and included standard previsit materials. We completed postintervention phone interviews and an online survey with participating patients and collected informal feedback and conducted a focus group with participating physicians. RESULTS: In the test of the first website version, 17.3% (35/202) of invited patients went to the website, 11.4% (23/202) completed all of the questions, 2.5% (5/202) brought results to their visits, and the median session time was 43.0 (IQR 28.0) minutes. Patients expressed confusion about bringing results to the visit. After clarifying that issue in the second version, 15.1% (32/212) of patients went to the website, 14.6% (31/212) completed the questions, 1.9% (4/212) brought results to the visit, and the median session time was 35.0 (IQR 35.0) minutes. In the test of the Epic questionnaire, 26.4% (198/750) of patients completed the questionnaire before at least 1 visit, and the median completion time was 14.0 (IQR 23.0) minutes. The 8 main questions were answered 62.9% (129/205) to 95.6% (196/205) of the time. Patients who completed questionnaires were younger than those who did not (72.3 vs 76.1 years) and were more likely to complete at least 1 of their other assigned questionnaires (99.5%, 197/198) than those who did not (10.3%, 57/552). A total of 140 of 198 (70.7%) patients responded to a survey, and 86 remembered completing the questionnaire; 78 (90.7%) did not remember having difficulty answering the questions and 57 (68.7%) agreed or somewhat agreed that it helped them and their clinicians to understand their priorities. Doctors noted that the sickest patients did not complete the questionnaire and that the discussion provided a good segue into end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding questionnaires assaying patient priorities into patient portals holds promise for expanding access to priorities-concordant care.

Clinical and Behavioral Research at the National Institute on Aging-50 Years of Innovation.

This Viewpoint discusses multicomplexity and dementia, 2 areas of clinical and behavioral research where the National Institute on Aging has made integral and distinctive contributions.

Patient Priorities-Aligned Care for Older Adults With Multiple Conditions: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Older adults with multiple conditions receive health care that may be burdensome, of uncertain benefit, and not focused on what matters to them. Identifying and aligning care with patients' health priorities may improve outcomes. Objective: To assess the association of receiving patient priorities care (PPC) vs usual care (UC) with relevant clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity adjustment, enrollment occurred between August 21, 2020, and May 14, 2021, with follow-up continuing through February 26, 2022. Patients who were aged 65 years or older and with 3 or more chronic conditions were enrolled at 1 PPC and 1 UC site within the Cleveland Clinic primary care multisite practice. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to August 2023. Intervention: Health professionals at the PPC site guided patients through identification of values, health outcome goals, health care preferences, and top priority (ie, health problem they most wanted to focus on because it impeded their health outcome goal). Primary clinicians followed PPC decisional strategies (eg, use patients' health priorities as focus of communication and decision-making) to decide with patients what care to stop, start, or continue. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included perceived treatment burden, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) social roles and activities, CollaboRATE survey scores, the number of nonhealthy days (based on healthy days at home), and shared prescribing decision quality measures. Follow-up was at 9 months for patient-reported outcomes and 365 days for nonhealthy days. Results: A total of 264 individuals participated, 129 in the PPC group (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.1] years; 66 women [48.9%]) and 135 in the UC group (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.5] years; 55 women [42.6%]). Characteristics between sites were balanced after propensity score weighting. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived treatment burden score between groups in multivariate models (difference, -5.2 points; 95% CI, -10.9 to -0.50 points; P = .07). PPC participants were almost 2.5 times more likely than UC participants to endorse shared prescribing decision-making (adjusted odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 6.40; P = .07), and participants in the PPC group experienced 4.6 fewer nonhealthy days (95% CI, -12.9 to -3.6 days; P = .27) compared with the UC participants. These differences were not statistically significant. CollaboRATE and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities scores were similar in the 2 groups at follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized trial of priorities-aligned care showed no benefit for social roles or CollaboRATE. While the findings for perceived treatment burden and shared prescribing decision-making were not statistically significant, point estimates for the findings suggested that PPC may hold promise for improving these outcomes. Randomized trials with larger samples are needed to determine the effectiveness of priorities-aligned care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510948.

One Size Fits All-An Underappreciated Health Inequity.

This Viewpoint discusses why health priorities­tailored care, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach, is beneficial for marginalized individuals.

Changes in Older Adult Trauma Quality When Evaluated Using Longer-Term Outcomes vs In-Hospital Mortality.

Importance: Lack of knowledge about longer-term outcomes remains a critical blind spot for trauma systems. Recent efforts have expanded trauma quality evaluation to include a broader array of postdischarge quality metrics. It remains unknown how such quality metrics should be used. Objective: To examine the utility of implementing recommended postdischarge quality metrics as a composite score and ascertain how composite score performance compares with that of in-hospital mortality for evaluating associations with hospital-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national hospital-level quality assessment evaluated hospital-level care quality using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims of older adults (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with primary diagnoses of trauma, hip fracture, and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Hospitals with annual volumes encompassing 10 or more of each diagnosis were included. The data analysis was performed between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. Exposures: Reliability-adjusted quality metrics used to calculate composite scores included hospital-specific performance on mortality, readmission, and patients' average number of healthy days at home (HDAH) within 30, 90, and 365 days among older adults hospitalized with all forms of trauma, hip fracture, and severe TBI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations with hospital-level factors were compared using volume-weighted multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 573 554 older adults (mean [SD] age, 83.1 [8.3] years; 64.8% female; 35.2% male) from 1234 hospitals were included. All 27 reliability-adjusted postdischarge quality metrics significantly contributed to the composite score. The most important drivers were 30- and 90-day readmission, patients' average number of HDAH within 365 days, and 365-day mortality among all trauma patients. Associations with hospital-level factors revealed predominantly anticipated trends when older adult trauma quality was evaluated using composite scores (eg, worst performance was associated with decreased older adult trauma volume [odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90]). Results for in-hospital mortality showed inverted associations for each considered hospital-level factor and suggested that compared with nontrauma centers, level 1 trauma centers had a 17 times higher risk-adjusted odds of worst (highest quantile) vs best (lowest quintile) performance (odds ratio, 17.08; 95% CI, 16.17-18.05). Conclusions and Relevance: The study results challenge historical notions about the adequacy of in-hospital mortality as the single measure of older adult trauma quality and suggest that, when it comes to older adults, decisions about how quality is evaluated can profoundly alter understandings of what constitutes best practices for care. Composite scores appear to offer a promising means by which postdischarge quality metrics could be used.

Beyond In-hospital Mortality: Use of Postdischarge Quality-Metrics Provides a More Complete Picture of Older Adult Trauma Care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the distributions of and extent of variability among 3 new sets of postdischarge quality-metrics measured within 30/90/365 days designed to better account for the unique health needs of older trauma patients: mortality (expansion of the current in-hospital standard), readmission (marker of health-system performance and care coordination), and patients' average number of healthy days at home (marker of patient functional status). BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries are a leading cause of death and loss of independence for the increasing number of older adults living in the United States. Ongoing efforts seek to expand quality evaluation for this population. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims, we calculated hospital-specific reliability-adjusted postdischarge quality-metrics for older adults aged 65 years or older admitted with a primary diagnosis of trauma, older adults with hip fracture, and older adults with severe traumatic brain injury. Distributions for each quality-metric within each population were assessed and compared with results for in-hospital mortality, the current benchmarking standard. RESULTS: A total of 785,867 index admissions (305,186 hip fracture and 92,331 severe traumatic brain injury) from 3692 hospitals were included. Within each population, use of postdischarge quality-metrics yielded a broader range of outcomes compared with reliance on in-hospital mortality alone. None of the postdischarge quality-metrics consistently correlated with in-hospital mortality, including death within 1 year [ r =0.581 (95% CI, 0.554-0.608)]. Differences in quintile-rank revealed that when accounting for readmissions (8.4%, κ=0.029) and patients' average number of healthy days at home (7.1%, κ=0.020), as many as 1 in 14 hospitals changed from the best/worst performance under in-hospital mortality to the completely opposite quintile rank. CONCLUSIONS: The use of new postdischarge quality-metrics provides a more complete picture of older adult trauma care: 1 with greater room for improvement and better reflection of multiple aspects of quality important to the health and recovery of older trauma patients when compared with reliance on quality benchmarking based on in-hospital mortality alone.

Benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation in nursing home residents with advanced dementia.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of older persons with dementia have atrial fibrillation (AF). Nearly all have stroke risks that exceed the guideline-recommended threshold for anticoagulation. Although individuals with dementia develop profound impairments and die from the disease, little evidence exists to guide anticoagulant discontinuation, and almost one-third of nursing home residents with advanced dementia and AF remain anticoagulated in the last 6 months of life. We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: Using Minimum Data Set and Medicare claims, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with 14,877 long-stay nursing home residents aged ≥66 between 2013 and 2018 who had advanced dementia and AF. We excluded individuals with venous thromboembolism and valvular heart disease. We measured anticoagulant exposure quarterly, using Medicare Part D claims. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke and serious bleeding. We performed survival analyses with multivariable adjustment and inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting. RESULTS: In the study sample, 72.0% were female, 82.7% were aged ≥80 years, and 13.5% were nonwhite. Mean CHA2 DS2 VASC score was 6.19 ± 1.58. In multivariable survival analysis, anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.75) and increased bleeding risk (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29); the association with stroke risk was not significant (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80-1.46). Results were similar in models with IPT weighting. While >50% of patients in both groups died within a year, median weighted survival was 76 days longer for anticoagulated individuals. CONCLUSION: Persons with advanced dementia and AF derive clinically modest life prolongation from anticoagulation, at the cost of elevated risk of bleeding. The relevance of this benefit is unclear in a group with high dementia-related mortality and for whom the primary goal is often comfort.

Acceptability and use of an online health priorities self-identification tool for older adults: A qualitative investigation.

Objective: To examine the use of a web-based, self-directed health priorities identification tool for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Methods: We recruited a gender- and racially-diverse, highly educated sample of older adults with MCCs to engage with our My Health Priorities tool, then complete a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis was used to examine interview transcripts. Results: Twenty-one participants shared perspectives on the acceptability and use of the tool. Three themes (with eleven subthemes) were generated to describe: website user experience feedback, the content of the health priorities identification process, and the tool's capacity to empower communication and decision making. Conclusion: Participants found this tool acceptable and easy to use, describing a variety of benefits of the priorities self-identification process and offered suggestions for refinement and broader implementation. Older adults with limited internet navigation abilities or misconceptions about the self-directed process may benefit from clinicians clarifying the purpose of the process or initiating priorities-aligned discussions. Innovation: This novel tool can help older adults with MCCs define what matters most for their health and healthcare, informing a variety of health decisions. This tool may enable and motivate patients to lead health priorities decision-making discussions with clinicians and care partners.

A Qualitative Study of "What Matters" to Older Adults in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: The "4Ms" model - What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility - is increasingly gaining attention in age-friendly health systems, yet a feasible approach to identifying what matters to older adults in the emergency department (ED) is lacking. Adapting the "What Matters" questions to the ED setting, we sought to describe the concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians. METHODS: We conducted 46 dyadic semi-structured interviews of cognitively intact older adults and their treating clinicians. We used the "What Matters" conversation guide to explore patients' 1) concerns and 2) desired outcomes. We then asked analogous questions to each patient's treating clinician regarding the patient's priorities. Interviews were professionally transcribed and coded using an inductive approach of thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Interviews with older adults lasted a mean of three minutes, with a range of 1-8 minutes. Regarding patients' concerns, five themes emerged from older adults: 1) concern through a family member or outpatient clinician recommendation; 2) no concern, with a high degree of trust in the healthcare system; 3) concerns regarding symptom cause identification; 4) concerns regarding symptom resolution; and 5) concerns regarding preservation of their current status. Regarding desired outcomes, five priority themes emerged among older adults: 1) obtaining a diagnosis; 2) returning to their home environment; 3) reducing or resolving symptoms; 4) maintaining self-care and independence; and 5) gaining reassurance. Responding to what they believed mattered most to older adult patients, ED clinicians believed that older adults were concerned primarily about symptom cause identification and resolution and primarily desired a return to the home environment and symptom reduction. CONCLUSION: This work identifies concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians as well as the feasibility of incorporating the "What Matters" questions within ED clinical practice.