Subject(s)
Frailty , Heart Failure , Veterans , Humans , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Frailty/diagnosis , Aged , Male , Female , Frail Elderly/statistics & numerical data , Aged, 80 and over , Geriatric Assessment/methods , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Providing healthcare for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is challenging. Polypharmacy and complex treatment plans can lead to high treatment burden and risk for adverse events. For clinicians, managing the complexities of patients with MCC leaves little room to identify what matters and align care options with patients' health priorities. New care approaches are needed to navigate these challenges. In this clinical trial, we evaluate implementation and effectiveness outcomes of an innovative, structured, patient-centered care approach (Patient Priorities Care; PPC) for reducing treatment burden and aligning health care decisions with the health priorities of older adults with MCC. METHODS: This is a multisite, assessor-blind, two-arm, parallel hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial. We are enrolling 396 older (65+) Veterans with MCC who receive primary care at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Veterans are randomly assigned to either PPC or usual care. In the PPC arm, Veterans have a brief telephone call with a study facilitator to identify their personal health priorities. Then, primary care providers use this information to align healthcare with Veteran priorities during their established clinic appointments. Data are collected at baseline and 4-month follow up to assess for changes in treatment burden and use of home and community services. Formative and summative evaluations are also collected to assess for implementation outcomes according to Proctor's implementation framework. CONCLUSIONS: This work has the potential to significantly improve the standard of care by personalizing healthcare and helping patients achieve what is most important to them.
Subject(s)
Multiple Chronic Conditions , Patient-Centered Care , Humans , Aged , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Multiple Chronic Conditions/therapy , United States , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/organization & administration , Veterans , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Female , Male , Health Priorities/organization & administration , PolypharmacyABSTRACT
Objectives: Implementation and sustainability of new care processes in emergency departments (EDs) is difficult. We describe experiences of implementing geriatric care processes in EDs that upgraded their accreditation level for the Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program. These EDs can provide a model for adopting and sustaining guidelines for evidence-based geriatric care. Methods: We performed qualitative interviews with geriatric ED nurse and physician leaders overseeing their ED's geriatric accreditation processes. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework consisting of a comprehensive set of factors that impact implementation of evidence-based interventions. We used inductive analysis to elucidate key themes from interviews and deductive analysis to map themes onto CFIR constructs. Results: Clinician leaders from 15 of 19 EDs that upgraded accreditation status by March 1, 2023 participated in interviews. Motivations to upgrade accreditation level centered on improving patient care (73%) and achieving recognition (56%). Rationales for choosing specific care processes were more commonly related to feasibility (40%) and ability to integrate the processes into the electronic health record (33%) than to site-specific patient needs (20%). Several common experiences in implementation were identified: (1) financing from the larger health system or philanthropy was crucial; (2) translating the Geriatric ED Guidelines into clinical practice was challenging for clinician leaders; (3) motivational barriers existed among frontline ED staff; (4) longitudinal staff education was needed given frontline ED staff attrition and turnover; and (5) the electronic health record facilitated implementation of geriatric screenings. Conclusions: Geriatric ED accreditation involves significant time, resource allocation, and longitudinal staff commitment. EDs pursuing geriatric accreditation balance aspirations to improve patient care with resource availability to implement new care processes and competing priorities.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: This quality improvement project demonstrates that nursing leadership with Project Re-Engineered Discharge can effect change in the discharge process and improve patient outcomes.
Subject(s)
Patient Discharge , Quality Improvement , Humans , Patient Discharge/standards , Rehabilitation Nursing/methods , Rehabilitation Nursing/standards , Change Management , United States , Hospitals, Veterans/standards , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/organization & administrationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of adding the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) to the U.S. Veterans Health Administration frailty index (VA-FI) for the prediction of time-to-death and other clinical outcomes in Veterans hospitalized with Heart Failure. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of veterans hospitalized for heart failure (HF) from October 2015 to October 2018. Veterans ≥50 years with albumin and lymphocyte counts, needed to calculate the PNI, in the year prior to hospitalization were included. We defined malnutrition as PNI ≤43.6, based on the Youden index. VA-FI was calculated from the year prior to the hospitalization and identified three groups: robust (≤0.1), prefrail (0.1-0.2), and frail (>0.2). Malnutrition was added to the VA-FI (VA-FI-Nutrition) as a 32nd deficit with the total number of deficits divided by 32. Frailty levels used the same cut-offs as the VA-FI. We compared categories based on VA-FI to those based on VA-FI-Nutrition and estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for post-discharge all-cause mortality over the study period as the primary outcome and other adverse events as secondary outcomes among patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction in each VA-FI and VA-FI-Nutrition frailty groups. RESULTS: We identified 37,601 Veterans hospitalized for HF (mean age: 73.4 ± 10.3 years, BMI: 31.3 ± 7.4 kg/m2). In general, VA-FI-Nutrition reclassified 1959 (18.6%) Veterans to a higher frailty level. The VA-FI identified 1,880 (5%) as robust, 8,644 (23%) as prefrail, and 27,077 (72%) as frail. The VA-FI-Nutrition reclassified 382 (20.3%) from robust to prefrail and 1577 (18.2%) from prefrail to frail creating the modified-prefrail and modified-frail categories based on the VA-FI-Nutrition. We observed shorter time-to-death among Veterans reclassified to a higher frailty status vs. those who remained in their original group (Median of 2.8 years (IQR:0.5,6.8) in modified-prefrail vs. 6.3 (IQR:1.8,6.8) years in robust, and 2.2 (IQR:0.7,5.7) years in modified-frail vs. 3.9 (IQR:1.4,6.8) years in prefrail). The adjusted HR in the reclassified groups was also significantly higher in the VA-FI-Nutrition frailty categories with a 38% increase in overall all-cause mortality among modified-prefrail and a 50% increase among modified-frails. Similar trends of increasing adverse events were also observed among reclassified groups for other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adding PNI to VA-FI provides a more accurate and comprehensive assessment among Veterans hospitalized for HF. Clinicians should consider adding a specific nutrition algorithm to automated frailty tools to improve the validity of risk prediction in patients hospitalized with HF.
Subject(s)
Frailty , Heart Failure , Malnutrition , Nutrition Assessment , Veterans , Humans , Male , Aged , Retrospective Studies , Female , Malnutrition/diagnosis , Malnutrition/epidemiology , Risk Assessment/methods , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Frailty/complications , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Prognosis , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Geriatric Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Nutritional Status , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/statistics & numerical data , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Research to date has detailed numerous challenges in emergency department (ED) communication with persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers. However, little is known about communication experiences of individuals belonging to minoritized racial and ethnic groups, who are disproportionately impacted by dementia and less likely to be included in dementia research. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 caregivers of PLWD from two urban academic hospital EDs with distinct patient populations. The first site is an ED in the Northeast serving a majority White, English-speaking, and insured population. The second site is an ED in the South serving a majority Black and/or Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, and underinsured population. Interviews lasted an average of 25 min and were digitally recorded and transcribed. We used an inductive approach to analyze interview transcripts for dominant themes and compared themes between sites. RESULTS: Our sample included caregivers of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Caregivers cared for PLWD who spoke English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Vietnamese. We identified three themes. First, caregiver advocacy was central to experiences of ED communication, particularly when PLWD primarily spoke a non-English language. Second, routine care plans did not address what mattered most to participants and PLWD. Participants felt that care arose from protocols and did not address what mattered most to them. Third, White English-speaking caregivers in Site 1 more commonly expected ED staff to engage them in care decision-making than Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern caregivers in Site 2. CONCLUSION: Language barriers amplify the higher intensity care needed by PLWD in the ED. Strategies should be developed for communicating with PLWD and caregivers about what matters most in their ED care.
Subject(s)
Caregivers , Dementia , Emergency Service, Hospital , Qualitative Research , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Caregivers/psychology , Communication , Communication Barriers , Dementia/nursing , Dementia/psychology , Ethnicity/psychology , Interviews as Topic , Black or African American , Hispanic or LatinoABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Older adults may be limited in their ability to access care that meets their health goals owing to disease burden, financial instability, and psychosocial barriers. A home-based primary care (HBPC) program established in 2020 within a large family medicine practice uses the Patient Priorities Care (PPC) approach to identify and address patients' health priorities. When incorporated as part of the HBPC model of care, the PPC approach has the potential to enhance person-centered care for older adults in a way that best supports their health goals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to summarize common recommendations for alignment of care with patients' health outcome goals after implementation of the PPC approach in an HBPC population. METHODS: This retrospective study was exempt from review by an institutional review board. After enrollment in the HBPC program, patients participated in a PPC priorities identification conversation to identify their health outcome goals and care preferences. Through chart review, 2 researchers independently categorized these goals based on the set of values they most reflect: connecting, managing health, enjoying life, and functioning. Aspects of care in place before enrollment in HBPC were considered to determine any adjustments that needed to be made to align care with patients' identified priorities. RESULTS: The most common value associated with patients' most desired health outcome goal was functioning (n = 33, 66%). For secondary and tertiary health outcome goals, the most common value identified was managing health (secondary, n = 28, 56%; tertiary, n = 22, 44%). Common recommendations made to align care with patients' identified priorities included stopping potentially harmful medications, starting medications for untreated conditions, starting physical or occupational therapy, and adjusting medications. CONCLUSION: Through the PPC approach, patients' values were identified and care was assessed to aid in attainment of individualized health outcome goals and tailor care to What Matters most.
Subject(s)
Home Care Services , Primary Health Care , Humans , Aged , Retrospective Studies , Patient Care , Patient-Centered CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether adding basal insulin to metformin in adults with early type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) would increase emotional distress relative to other treatments. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) of adults with T2DM of <10 years' duration, HbA1c 6.8-8.5%, and taking metformin monotherapy randomly assigned participants to add insulin glargine U-100, sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor sitagliptin. The Emotional Distress Substudy enrolled 1,739 GRADE participants (mean [SD] age 58.0 [10.2] years, 32% female, 56% non-Hispanic White, 18% non-Hispanic Black, 17% Hispanic) and assessed diabetes distress and depressive symptoms every 6 months. Analyses examined differences at 1 year and over the 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Across treatments, diabetes distress (-0.24, P < 0.0001) and depressive symptoms (-0.67, P < 0.0001) decreased over 1 year. Diabetes distress was lower at 1 year for the glargine group than for the other groups combined (-0.10, P = 0.002). Diabetes distress was also lower for liraglutide than for glimepiride or sitagliptin (-0.10, P = 0.008). Over the 3-year follow-up, there were no significant group differences in total diabetes distress; interpersonal diabetes distress remained lower for those assigned to liraglutide. No significant differences were observed for depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, this randomized trial found no evidence for a deleterious effect of basal insulin on emotional distress. Glargine lowered diabetes distress modestly at 1 year rather than increasing it. Liraglutide also reduced diabetes distress at 1 year. Results can inform treatment decisions for adults with early T2DM.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Metformin , Sulfonylurea Compounds , Adult , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Male , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Liraglutide/therapeutic use , Insulin Glargine/therapeutic use , Depression/drug therapy , Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 , Blood Glucose , Glycated Hemoglobin , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Metformin/therapeutic use , Sitagliptin Phosphate/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Patient priorities care (PPC) is an evidence-based approach designed to help patients achieve what matters most to them by identifying their health priorities and working with clinicians to align the care they provide to the patient's priorities. This study examined the impact of the PPC approach on long-term service and support (LTSS) use among veterans. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study examining differences in LTSS use between veterans exposed to PPC and propensity-matched controls not exposed to PPC adjusting for covariates. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six social workers in 5 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sites trained in PPC in 2018, 143 veterans who used the PPC approach, and 286 matched veterans who did not use the PPC approach. METHODS: Veterans with health priorities identified through the PPC approach were the intervention group (n = 143). The usual care group included propensity-matched veterans evaluated by the same social workers in the same period who did not participate in PPC (n = 286). The visit with the social worker was the index date. We examined LTSS use, emergency department (ED), and urgent care visits, 12 months before and after this date for both groups. Electronic medical record notes were extracted with a validated natural language processing algorithm (84% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and 92% accuracy). RESULTS: Most participants were white men, mean age was 76, and 30% were frail. LTSS use was 48% higher in the PPC group compared with the usual care group [odds ratio (OR), 1.48; 95% CI, 1.00-2.18; P = .05]. Among those who lived >2 years after the index date, new LTSS use was higher (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.04-2.76; P = .036). Among nonfrail individuals, LTSS use was also higher in the PPC group (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.74; P = .028). PPC was not associated with higher ED or urgent care use. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: PPC results in higher LTSS use but not ED or urgent care in these veterans. LTSS use was higher for nonfrail veterans and those living longer. The PPC approach helps identify health priorities, including unmet needs for safe and independent living that LTSS can support.
Subject(s)
Propensity Score , Humans , Male , Female , United States , Aged , Middle Aged , Cohort Studies , Veterans , Health Priorities , United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Long-Term CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We examined longitudinal associations between emotional distress (specifically, depressive symptoms and diabetes distress) and medication adherence in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing four glucose-lowering medications added to metformin in adults with relatively recent-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Emotional Distress Substudy assessed medication adherence, depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress in 1,739 GRADE participants via self-completed questionnaires administered biannually up to 3 years. We examined baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress as predictors of medication adherence over 36 months. Bidirectional visit-to-visit relationships were also examined. Treatment satisfaction, beliefs about medication, diabetes care self-efficacy, and perceived control over diabetes were evaluated as mediators of longitudinal associations. RESULTS: At baseline, mean ± SD age of participants (56% of whom were White, 17% Hispanic/Latino, 18% Black, and 66% male) was 58.0 ± 10.2 years, diabetes duration 4.2 ± 2.8 years, HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.5%, and medication adherence 89.9% ± 11.1%. Higher baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress were independently associated with lower adherence over 36 months (P < 0.001). Higher depressive symptoms and diabetes distress at one visit predicted lower adherence at the subsequent 6-month visit (P < 0.0001) but not vice versa. Treatment assignment did not moderate relationships. Patient-reported concerns about diabetes medications mediated the largest percentage (11.9%-15.5%) of the longitudinal link between emotional distress and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms and diabetes distress both predict lower adherence to glucose-lowering medications over time among adults with T2DM. Addressing emotional distress and concerns about anticipated negative effects of taking these treatments may be important to support diabetes treatment adherence.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Metformin , Psychological Distress , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Glucose/therapeutic use , Medication Adherence/psychology , Metformin/therapeutic use , Comparative Effectiveness ResearchABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether baseline levels of depressive symptoms and diabetes-specific distress are associated with glycemic control in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing the metabolic effects of four common glucose-lowering medications when combined with metformin in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The primary and secondary outcomes were defined as an HbA1c value ≥7%, subsequently confirmed, and an HbA1c value >7.5%, subsequently confirmed, respectively. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between baseline levels of each exposure of interest (depressive symptoms measured with the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire and diabetes distress measured with the Diabetes Distress Scale) and the subsequent risk of metabolic outcomes. RESULTS: This substudy included 1,739 participants (56% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 18% non-Hispanic Black, 17% Hispanic, and 68% male; mean [SD] age 58.0 [10.2] years, diabetes duration 4.2 [2.8] years, and HbA1c 7.5% [0.48%]). A total of 1,157 participants reached the primary outcome, with time to event of 2.1 years on average, while 738 participants reached the secondary outcome at 3 years on average. With adjustment for sex, race/ethnicity, treatment group, baseline age, duration of T2DM, BMI, and HbA1c, there were no significant associations between the depressive symptoms or diabetes distress and the subsequent risk of the primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that, at least for individuals with diabetes of relatively short duration, baseline levels of emotional distress are not associated with glycemic control over time.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Psychological Distress , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/psychology , Glycated Hemoglobin , Glycemic Control , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Comparative Effectiveness ResearchABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities , Patient Care , Humans , Female , Aged , Communication , Data Analysis , Decision Making, SharedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Gaps in accessibility and communication hinder diabetes care in poor communities. Combining mobile health (mHealth) and community health workers (CHWs) into models to bridge these gaps has great potential but needs evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a mHealth-based, Participant-CHW-Clinician feedback loop in a real-world setting. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental feasibility study with intervention and usual care (UC) groups. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 134 participants (n = 67/group) who were all low-income, uninsured Hispanics with or at-risk for type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTION: A 15-month study with a weekly to semimonthly mHealth Participant-CHW-Clinician feedback loop to identify participant issues and provide participants monthly diabetes education via YouTube. MAIN MEASURES: We used pre-defined feasibility measures to evaluate our intervention: (a) implementation, the execution of feedback loops to identify and resolve participant issues, and (b) efficacy, intended effects of the program on clinical outcomes (baseline to 15-month HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and weight changes) for each group and their subgroups (at-risk; with diabetes, including uncontrolled (HbA1c ≥ 7%)). KEY RESULTS: CHWs identified 433 participant issues (mean = 6.5 ± 5.3) and resolved 91.9% of these. Most issues were related to supplies, 26.3% (n = 114); physical health, 23.1% (n = 100); and medication access, 20.8% (n = 90). Intervention participants significantly improved HbA1c (- 0.51%, p = 0.03); UC did not (- 0.10%, p = 0.76). UC DBP worsened (1.91 mmHg, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses revealed HbA1c improvements for uncontrolled diabetes (intervention: - 1.59%, p < 0.01; controlled: - 0.72, p = 0.03). Several variables for UC at-risk participants worsened: HbA1c (0.25%, p < 0.01), SBP (4.05 mmHg, p < 0.01), DBP (3.21 mmHg, p = 0.01). There were no other significant changes for either group. CONCLUSIONS: A novel mHealth-based, Participant-CHW-Clinician feedback loop was associated with improved HbA1c levels and identification and resolution of participant issues. UC individuals had several areas of clinical deterioration, particularly those at-risk for diabetes, which is concerning for progression to diabetes and disease-related complications. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT03394456, accessed at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03394456.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Telemedicine , Humans , Community Health Workers , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Feedback , Glycated Hemoglobin , Hispanic or LatinoABSTRACT
Persons living with dementia (PLWD) have high emergency department (ED) utilization. Little is known about using telemedicine with PLWD and caregivers as an alternative to ED visits for minor acute health problems. This qualitative interview-based study elicited caregivers' perspectives about the acceptability of telemedicine for acute complaints. We performed telephone interviews with 28 caregivers of PLWD from two academic EDs, one in the Northeast and another in the South. Using a combined deductive-inductive approach, we coded interview transcripts and elucidated common themes by consensus. All caregivers reported they would need to participate in the telemedicine visit to help overcome communication and digital literacy challenges. People from racial/ethnic minority groups reported lower comfort with the virtual format. In both sites, participants expressed uncertainty about illness severity that could preclude using telemedicine for acute complaints. Overall, respondents deemed acute care telemedicine acceptable, but caregivers describe specific roles as crucial intermediaries to facilitate virtual care.
Subject(s)
Dementia , Telemedicine , Humans , Caregivers , Ethnicity , Minority GroupsABSTRACT
Importance: The Diabetes Distress Scale-17 (DDS-17) is a common measure of diabetes distress. Despite its popularity, there are no agreed-on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the DDS-17. Objective: To establish a distribution-based metric for MCID in the DDS-17 and its 4 subscale scores (interpersonal distress, physician distress, regimen distress, and emotional distress). Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial used baseline and postintervention data from a hybrid (implementation-effectiveness) trial evaluating Empowering Patients in Chronic Care (EPICC) vs an enhanced form of usual care (EUC). Participants included adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level >8.0%) who received primary care during the prior year in participating Department of Veterans Affairs clinics across Illinois, Indiana, and Texas. Data collection was completed in November 2018, and data analysis was completed in June 2023. Interventions: Participants in EPICC attended 6 group sessions led by health care professionals based on collaborative goal-setting theory. EUC included diabetes education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was distribution-based MCID values for the total DDS-17 and 4 DDS-17 subscales, calculated using the standard error of measurement. Baseline to postintervention changes in DDS-17 and its 4 subscale scores were grouped into 3 categories: improved, no change, and worsened. Multilevel logistic and linear regression models examined associations between treatment group and MCID change categories and whether improvement in HbA1c varied in association with MCID category. Results: A total of 248 individuals with complete DDS-17 data were included (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [8.3] years; 235 [94.76%] men), with 123 participants in the EPICC group and 125 participants in the EUC group. The MCID value for DDS-17 was 0.25 and MCID values for the 4 distress subscales were 0.38 for emotional and interpersonal distress and 0.39 for physician and regimen distress. Compared with EUC, more EPICC participants were in the MCID improvement category on DDS-17 (63 participants [51.22%] vs 40 participants [32.00%]; P = .003) and fewer EPICC participants were in the worsened category (20 participants [16.26%] vs 39 participants [31.20%]; P = .008). There was no direct association of DDS-17 MCID improvement (ß = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.10; P = .17) or worsening (ß = 0.18; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.59; P = .38) with HbA1c levels among all participants. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, an MCID improvement or worsening of more than 0.25 on the DDS-17 was quantitatively significant and patients in the EPICC group were more likely to experience improvement than those in the EUC group. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01876485.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , United States , Adult , Male , Humans , Aged , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Data Analysis , Data CollectionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recruitment for clinical studies is challenging. To overcome barriers, investigators have previously established call-to-entry rates to assist in planning. However, rates specific to low-income minority populations are needed to account for additional barriers to enrolment these individuals face. OBJECTIVE: To obtain a call-to-entry rate in a low-income uninsured Hispanic population with chronic disease. METHODS: We used data from four of our randomised clinical studies to determine the call-to-entry rate for individuals (n=1075) with or at risk for type 2 diabetes: participants needed/potential participants contacted=recruitment rate (yield). Research staff contacted potential participants to enrol in a study that evaluated 6 month diabetes programmes at community clinics from 2015 to 2020. We recorded call-to-entry rates, reasons for declining the study, show rates, and attrition. RESULTS: The call-to-entry rate was 14.5%. Forty per cent of potential participants could not be contacted, and 30.6%, 19.1%, and 5.4% responded yes, no, and maybe, respectively. No show percentages were 54% for yes and 91.4% for maybe responders. The majority (61.6%) declined due to inability to attend; reasons to decline included work (43%), eligibility (18%), transportation (10%), out of town (9%), did not think they needed the programme (7%) and other/unknown (14%). Being a physician predicted inability to reach participants (adjusted OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.90). Attrition was 6.8%. CONCLUSIONS: We described a call-to-entry rate and detailed recruitment data, including reasons to decline the study. This valuable information can assist investigators in study planning and overcoming enrolment barriers in low-income populations. Telehealth-based or strategies that limit transportation needs may increase participant involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03394456.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Patient Selection , Humans , Cohort Studies , Hispanic or Latino , Poverty , Research Design , Community Health CentersABSTRACT
AIMS: People with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We examined depressive symptoms (DS) and diabetes distress (DD) in relation to the estimated 10-year risk of CVD in adults with T2DM enrolled in the GRADE Emotional Distress Substudy. METHODS: Linear regression models examined the associations of baseline DS and DD with estimated 10-year risk of CVD using the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, diabetes duration, diabetes-related complications, and HbA1c. RESULTS: A total of 1,605 GRADE participants were included: 54% Non-Latino (NL) White, 18% Latino, 19% NL-Black, 66% male, mean age 57.5 (SD = 10.25) years, diabetes duration 4.2 (SD = 2.8) years, and HbA1c 7.5% (SD = 0.5%). After incorporating covariates, only DS, especially cognitive-affective symptoms, were associated with ASCVD risk (estimate = 0.15 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.025], p = 0.006). Higher DS remained significantly associated with higher ASCVD risk when adding DD to covariates (estimate = 0.19 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.30], p = 0.002). DD was not associated with ASCVD risk when accounting for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms, particularly cognitive-affective symptoms, are associated with increased 10-year predicted ASCVD risk among adults with early T2DM. Diabetes distress is not significantly associated with the predicted ASCVD risk when accounting for covariates.
Subject(s)
Atherosclerosis , Cardiovascular Diseases , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Psychological Distress , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Female , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/psychology , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Glycated Hemoglobin , Risk Factors , Atherosclerosis/etiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Patients with multiple chronic conditions, especially cancer survivors, face challenges in medical decision making. Previous research demonstrates how patient values can guide medical decisions, however facilitating patient values elicitation remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of and refine the What Matters Most (WMM) Survey, a self-reported values elicitation tool, in a cohort of older veteran cancer survivors. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the WMM Survey in older, multimorbid cancer survivors. 262 patients were administered the assessment at two timepoints, between 14 and 30 days apart. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses revealed four factors for assessing healthcare values among older adults with good internal consistency for all factors: Functioning (Cronbach's alpha coefficient, α = 0.88), Enjoying Life (α = 0.79), Connecting (α = 0.84), and Managing Health (α = 0.88). Demographic and clinical characteristics were not uniformly associated with specific healthcare values. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies are required to refine the proposed assessment and to evaluate its application in a general patient population. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The WMM Survey is an innovative resource in health values elicitation, allowing for facilitation of patient-clinician communication for whole-person medical approaches and measurement of health values for research.