Formative Perceptions of a Digital Pill System to Measure Adherence to Heart Failure Pharmacotherapy: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) affects 6.2 million Americans and is a leading cause of hospitalization. The mainstay of the management of HF is adherence to pharmacotherapy. Despite the effectiveness of HF pharmacotherapy, effectiveness is closely linked to adherence. Measuring adherence to HF pharmacotherapy is difficult; most clinical measures use indirect strategies such as calculating pharmacy refill data or using self-report. While helpful in guiding treatment adjustments, indirect measures of adherence may miss the detection of suboptimal adherence and co-occurring structural barriers associated with nonadherence. Digital pill systems (DPSs), which use an ingestible radiofrequency emitter to directly measure medication ingestions in real-time, represent a strategy for measuring and responding to nonadherence in the context of HF pharmacotherapy. Previous work has demonstrated the feasibility of using DPSs to measure adherence in other chronic diseases, but this strategy has yet to be leveraged for individuals with HF. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore through qualitative interviews the facilitators and barriers to using DPS technology to monitor pharmacotherapy adherence among patients with HF. METHODS: We conducted individual, semistructured qualitative interviews and quantitative assessments between April and August 2022. A total of 20 patients with HF who were admitted to the general medical or cardiology service at an urban quaternary care hospital participated in this study. Participants completed a qualitative interview exploring the overall acceptability of and willingness to use DPS technology for adherence monitoring and perceived barriers to DPS use. Quantitative assessments evaluated HF history, existing medication adherence strategies, and attitudes toward technology. We analyzed qualitative data using applied thematic analysis and NVivo software (QSR International). RESULTS: Most participants (12/20, 60%) in qualitative interviews reported a willingness to use the DPS to measure HF medication adherence. Overall, the DPS was viewed as useful for increasing accountability and reinforcing adherence behaviors. Perceived barriers included technological issues, a lack of need, additional costs, and privacy concerns. Most were open to sharing adherence data with providers to bolster clinical care and decision-making. Reminder messages following detected nonadherence were perceived as a key feature, and customization was desired. Suggested improvements are primarily related to the design and usability of the Reader (a wearable device). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, individuals with HF perceived the DPS to be an acceptable and useful tool for measuring medication adherence. Accurate, real-time ingestion data can guide adherence counseling to optimize adherence management and inform tailored behavioral interventions to support adherence among patients with HF.

Refinement of an Emergency Department-Based, Advance Care Planning Intervention for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Their Caregivers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are important to provide goal-concordant care (i.e., the care that matches the patient's previously stated goals) near end of life. While 31% of older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) have dementia, only 39% have previously had ACP conversations. We refined and piloted an ED-based, motivational interview designed to stimulate ACP conversations (ED GOAL) for patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We systematically refined ED GOAL and then conducted an acceptability study in an urban, academic medical center. We prospectively enrolled adults aged 50+ with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured acceptability after the intervention and participants' ACP engagement at baseline and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: Specific statements to address both the patient and caregiver were added to the ED GOAL script. Of 60 eligible patient/caregiver dyads approached, 26 participated, and 20 (77%) completed follow-up assessments. Patient mean age was 79 years (SD 8.5); 65% were female, 92.3% were White, 96.2% were non-Hispanic, and 69% had moderate dementia. Most patients/caregivers reported feeling completely heard and understood by the study clinician about their future medical care preferences (58%, 15/26). They also reported that the study clinician was very respectful (96%, 25/26) when eliciting those preferences. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers found our refined ED GOAL acceptable and respectful. Future studies need to examine the effect of ED GOAL on ACP engagement among these dyads in the ED.

The differences in code status conversation approaches reported by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.