Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling.

BACKGROUND: Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments. METHODS: We sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals. RESULTS: Of 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Balance of benefits and harms of different blood pressure targets in people with multiple chronic conditions: a quantitative benefit-harm assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of 120 mm Hg is appropriate for people with hypertension, but this is debated particularly in people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). We aimed to quantitatively determine whether benefits of a lower SBP target justify increased risks of harm in people with MCC, considering patient-valued outcomes and their relative importance. DESIGN: Highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessment based on various input data identified as the most valid and applicable from a systematic review of evidence and based on weights from a patient preference survey. SETTING: Outpatient care. PARTICIPANTS: Hypertensive patients, grouped by age, gender, prior history of stroke, chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. INTERVENTIONS: SBP target of 120 versus 140 mm Hg for patients without history of stroke. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Probability that the benefits of a SBP target of 120 mm Hg outweigh the harms compared with 140 mm Hg over 5 years (primary) with thresholds >0.6 (120 mm Hg better), <0.4 (140 mm Hg better) and 0.4 to 0.6 (unclear), number of prevented clinical events (secondary), calculated with the Gail/National Cancer Institute approach. RESULTS: Considering individual patient preferences had a substantial impact on the benefit-harm balance. With average preferences, 120 mm Hg was the better target compared with 140 mm Hg for many subgroups of patients without prior stroke, especially in patients over 75. For women below 65 with chronic kidney disease and without diabetes and prior stroke, 140 mm Hg was better. The analyses did not include mild adverse effects, and apply only to patients who tolerate antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients, a lower SBP target was beneficial, but this depended also on individual preferences, implying individual decision-making is important. Our modelling allows for individualised treatment targets based on patient preferences, age, gender and co-morbidities.

Nonphysician Care Providers Can Help to Increase Detection of Cognitive Impairment and Encourage Diagnostic Evaluation for Dementia in Community and Residential Care Settings.

In the United States, at least half of older adults living with dementia do not have a diagnosis. Their cognitive impairment may not have been detected, and some older adults whose physician recommends that they obtain a diagnostic evaluation do not follow through on the recommendation. Initiatives to increase detection of cognitive impairment and diagnosis of dementia have focused primarily on physician practices and public information programs to raise awareness about the importance of detection and diagnosis. Nonphysician care providers who work with older adults in community and residential care settings, such as aging network agencies, public health agencies, senior housing, assisted living, and nursing homes, interact frequently with older adults who have cognitive impairment but have not had a diagnostic evaluation. These care providers may be aware of signs of cognitive impairment and older adults' concerns about their cognition that have not been expressed to their physician. Within their scope of practice and training, nonphysician care providers can help to increase detection of cognitive impairment and encourage older adults with cognitive impairment to obtain a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of the condition. This article provides seven practice recommendations intended to increase involvement of nonphysician care providers in detecting cognitive impairment and encouraging older adults to obtain a diagnostic evaluation. The Kickstart-Assess-Evaluate-Refer (KAER) framework for physician practice in detection and diagnosis of dementia is used to identify ways to coordinate physician and nonphysician efforts and thereby increase the proportion of older adults living with dementia who have a diagnosis.

Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines That Address Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Having more than one chronic condition is common and is associated with greater health care utilization, higher medication burden and complexity of treatment. However, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not routinely address the balance between harms and benefits of treatments for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). OBJECTIVE: To partner with the Kaiser Permanente Integrated Cardiovascular Health (ICVH) program to engage multiple stakeholders in a mixed-methods approach in order to: 1) identify two high-priority clinical questions related to MCCs, and 2) understand patients' and family caregivers' perceptions of meaningful outcomes to inform benefit/harm assessments for these two high-priority questions. These clinical questions and outcomes will be used to inform CPG recommendations for people with MCCs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The ICVH program provided 130 topics rank-ordered by the potential for finding evidence that would change clinical recommendations regarding the topic. We used a modified Delphi method to identify and reword topics into questions relevant to people with MCCs. We used two sets of focus groups (n = 27) to elicit patient and caregiver perspectives on two important research questions and relevant patient-important outcomes on benefit/harm balance for people with MCCs. KEY RESULTS: Co-investigators, patients and caregivers identified "optimal blood pressure goals" and "diabetes medication management" as important clinical topics for CPGs related to people with MCCs. Stakeholders identified a list of relevant outcomes to be addressed in future CPG development including 1) physical function and energy, 2) emotional health and well-being, 3) avoidance of treatment burden, side effects and risks, 4) interaction with providers and health care system, and 5) prevention of adverse long-term health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of a mixed-methods process, we identified the questions regarding optimal blood pressure goals and diabetes medication management, along with related patient-centered outcomes, to inform novel evidence syntheses for those with MCCs. This study provides the lessons learned and a generalizable process for CPG developers to engage patient and caregivers in priority-setting for the translation of evidence into future CPGs. Ultimately, engaging patient and stakeholders around MCCs could improve the relevance of CPGs for the care of people with MCCs.

Caregiver outcomes of partners in dementia care: effect of a care coordination program for veterans with dementia and their family members and friends.

The objective is to test the effectiveness of Partners in Dementia Care (PDC), a care-coordination program that integrates and improves access to medical and nonmedical services, while strengthening the informal care network and providing information, coaching, and emotional support. PDC was delivered via a partnership between Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers (VAMCs) and Alzheimer's Association chapters, for caregivers of veterans with dementia living in the community and receiving primary care from the VA. The initial sample was 486 caregivers of 508 veterans with diagnosed dementia. Outcomes were evaluated for 394 and 324 caregivers who completed 6- and 12- month follow-up, respectively. PDC had a standardized protocol that included assessment and reassessment, action planning, and ongoing monitoring. It was delivered by telephone and e-mail for cost efficiency and the ability to handle caseloads of 100 to 125. Care coordinators from VAMCs and Alzheimer's Association chapters worked as a team using a shared computerized record. A variety of caregiver outcomes was measured after 6 and 12 months. Intervention group caregivers had significant improvements in outcomes representing unmet needs, three types of caregiver strains, depression, and two support resources. Most improvements were evident after 6 months, with more-limited improvements from Months 6 to 12. Some outcomes improved for all caregivers, whereas some improved for caregivers experiencing more initial difficulties or caring for veterans with more-severe impairments. PDC is a promising model that improves linkages between healthcare services and community services, which is a goal of several new national initiatives such as the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease and a proposed amendment to the Older Americans Act.

Advancing Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, treatment, and care: recommendations from the Ware Invitational Summit.

To address the pending public health crisis due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative disorders, the Marian S. Ware Alzheimer Program at the University of Pennsylvania held a meeting entitled "State of the Science Conference on the Advancement of Alzheimer's Diagnosis, Treatment and Care," on June 21-22, 2012. The meeting comprised four workgroups focusing on Biomarkers; Clinical Care and Health Services Research; Drug Development; and Health Economics, Policy, and Ethics. The workgroups shared, discussed, and compiled an integrated set of priorities, recommendations, and action plans, which are presented in this article.

Usefulness of a single item in a mail survey to identify persons with possible dementia: a new strategy for finding high-risk elders.

The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of elderly persons who responded positively to a question about "severe memory problems" on a mailed health questionnaire yet were missed by the existing health risk algorithm to identify vulnerable elderly persons. A total of 324,471 respondents aged 65 and older completed a primary care health status questionnaire that gathered clinical information to quickly identify members with functional impairment, multiple chronic diseases, and higher medical care needs. The respondents were part of a large, integrated, not-for-profit managed care organization that implemented a model of care for elders using a uniform risk identification method across eight regions. Respondents with severe memory problems were compared to general respondents by morbidity, geriatric syndromes, functional impairments, service utilization, sensory impairments, sociodemographic characteristics, and activities of daily living. Of the respondents, 13,902 persons (4.3%) reported severe memory problems; the existing health risk algorithm missed 47.1% of these. When severe memory problems were included in the risk algorithm, identification increased from 11% to 13%, and risk prevalence by age groups ranged from 4.4% to 40.5%; one third had severe memory problems, a finding that was fairly consistent within age groups (28.4% to 36.5%). A question about severe memory problems should be incorporated into population risk-identification techniques. While false-negative rates are unknown, the false-positive rate of a self-report mail survey appears to be minimal. Persons reporting severe memory problems clearly have multiple comorbidities, higher prevalence of geriatric syndromes, and greater functional and sensory impairments.

Dementia and serious coexisting medical conditions: a double whammy.

Research-based information about the prevalence of other serious medical conditions in people with dementia has become available only recently, and the true prevalence is not known, primarily because many people with dementia do not have a diagnosis. The existing information is sufficient, however, to show that these other conditions are common in people with dementia. It is also clear that coexisting medical conditions increase the use and cost of health care services for people with dementia, and conversely, dementia increases the use and cost of health care services for people with other serious medical conditions. Nurses and other healthcare professionals should expect to see these relationships in their elderly patients. They should know how to recognize possible dementia and assess, or obtain an assessment of, the patient's cognitive status. They should expect the worsening of cognitive and related symptoms in acutely ill people with dementia and try to eliminate factors that cause this worsening, to the extent possible, while assuring the family that the symptoms are likely to improve once the acute phase of illness or treatment is over. Families, nurses, and other health care professionals are challenged by the complex issues involved in caring for a person with both dementia and other serious medical conditions. Greater attention to these issues by informed and thoughtful clinicians will improve outcomes for the people and their family and professional caregivers.

Optimizing coding and reimbursement to improve management of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

The objectives of this study were to review the diagnostic, International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), diagnosis related groups (DRGs), and common procedural terminology (CPT) coding and reimbursement issues (including Medicare Part B reimbursement for physicians) encountered in caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD); to review the implications of these policies for the long-term clinical management of the patient with ADRD; and to provide recommendations for promoting appropriate recognition and reimbursement for clinical services provided to ADRD patients. Relevant English-language articles identified from MEDLINE about ADRD prevalence estimates; disease morbidity and mortality; diagnostic coding practices for ADRD; and Medicare, Medicaid, and managed care organization data on diagnostic coding and reimbursement were reviewed. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is grossly undercoded. Few AD cases are recognized at an early stage. Only 13% of a group of patients receiving the AD therapy donepezil had AD as the primary diagnosis, and AD is rarely included as a primary or secondary DRG diagnosis when the condition precipitating admission to the hospital is caused by AD. In addition, AD is often not mentioned on death certificates, although it may be the proximate cause of death. There is only one ICD-9-CM code for AD-331.0-and no clinical modification codes, despite numerous complications that can be directly attributed to AD. Medicare carriers consider ICD-9 codes for senile dementia (290 series) to be mental health codes and pay them at a lower rate than medical codes. DRG coding is biased against recognition of ADRD as an acute, admitting diagnosis. The CPT code system is an impediment to quality of care for ADRD patients because the complex, time-intensive services ADRD patients require are not adequately, if at all, reimbursed. Also, physicians treating significant numbers of AD patients are at greater risk of audit if they submit a high frequency of complex codes. AD is grossly undercoded in acute hospital and outpatient care settings because of failure to diagnose, limitations of the coding system, and reimbursement issues. Such undercoding leads to a lack of recognition of the effect of AD and its complications on clinical care and impedes the development of better care management. We recommend continuing physician education on the importance of early diagnosis and care management of AD and its documentation through appropriate coding, expansion of the current ICD-9-CM codes for AD, more appropriate use of DRG coding for ADRD, recognition of the need for time-intensive services by ADRD patients that result in a higher frequency of use of complex CPT codes, and reimbursement for CPT codes that cover ADRD care management services.