Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Multiple Sclerosis: The MS-SUPPORT Tool.

BACKGROUND: Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) offer opportunities to improve the course of multiple sclerosis (MS), but decisions about treatment are difficult. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) want more involvement in decisions about DMTs, but new approaches are needed to support shared decision-making (SDM) because of the number of treatment options and the range of outcomes affected by treatment. We designed a patient-centered tool, MS-SUPPORT, to facilitate SDM for pwMS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and impact of MS-SUPPORT on decisions about disease modifying treatments (DMTs), SDM processes, and quality-of-life. METHODS: This multisite randomized controlled trial compared the SDM intervention (MS-SUPPORT) to control (usual care) over a 12-month period. English-speaking adults with relapsing MS were eligible if they had an upcoming MS appointment and an email address. To evaluate clinician perspectives, participants' MS clinicians were invited to participate. Patients were referred between November 11, 2019 and October 23, 2020 by their MS clinician or a patient advocacy organization (the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America). MS-SUPPORT is an online, interactive, evidence-based decision aid that was co-created with pwMS. It clarifies patient treatment goals and values and provides tailored information about MS, DMTs, and adherence. Viewed by patients before their clinic appointment, MS-SUPPORT generates a personalized summary of the patient's treatment goals and preferences, adherence, DMT use, and clinical situation to share with their MS clinician. Outcomes (DMT utilization, adherence, quality-of-life, and SDM) were assessed at enrollment, post-MS-SUPPORT, post-appointment, and quarterly for 1 year. RESULTS: Participants included 501 adults with MS from across the USA (84.6% female, 83% white) and 34 of their MS clinicians (47% neurologists, 41% Nurse Practitioners, 12% Physician Assistants). Among the 203 patients who completed MS-SUPPORT, most (88.2%) reported they would recommend it to others and that it helped them talk to their doctor (85.2%), understand their options (82.3%) and the importance of taking DMTs as prescribed (82.3%). Among non-users of DMTs at baseline, the probability ratio of current DMT use consistently trended higher over one-year follow-up in the MS-SUPPORT group (1.30 [0.86-1.96]), as did the cumulative probability of starting a DMT within 6-months, with shorter time-to-start (46 vs 90 days, p=0.24). Among the 222 responses from 34 participating clinicians, more clinicians in the MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) trended towards recommending their patient start a DMT (9 of 108 (8%) vs 5 of 109 (5%), respectively, p=0.26). Adherence (no missed doses) to daily-dosed DMTs was higher in the MS-SUPPORT group (81.25% vs 56.41%, p=.026). Fewer patients forgot their doses (p=.046). The MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) reported 1.7 fewer days/month of poor mental health (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MS-SUPPORT was strongly endorsed by patients and is feasible to use in clinical settings. MS-SUPPORT increased the short-term probability of taking and adhering to a DMT, and improved long-term mental health. Study limitations include selection bias, response bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Exploring approaches to reinforcement and monitoring its implementation in real-world settings should provide further insights into the value and utility of this new SDM tool.

Do Hospitalizations Disrupt Loyalty to Ambulatory Care Providers?

We sought to determine whether hospitalizations affect where patients seek ambulatory care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 569 adults who were attributed by a commercial payer to a large physician organization (PO) and hospitalized in 2015. Approximately half of the patients (55%) were admitted to the hospital affiliated with the PO; the rest were hospitalized elsewhere. Patients hospitalized elsewhere were significantly less likely to be seen by a PO provider in the 6 months posthospitalization than those hospitalized at the affiliated hospital (adjusted odds ratio = 0.29; 95% confidence interval = 0.17-0.48). These results have important implications for population management.

Patient preferences for route of allergy immunotherapy: a comparison of four delivery methods.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy (IT) is a disease-modifying treatment for allergic rhinitis, and adherence to the treatment schedule is important for a successful outcome. Several methods for delivering IT are now available, but little information is known concerning patient preference for these options. METHODS: Over a 12-month period, 228 adults scheduled to undergo outpatient allergy testing were offered a survey to rank 4 different IT delivery methods: subcutaneous IT (SCIT), sublingual IT using liquid extracts (SLIT), sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablets (AIT), and oral mucosal immunotherapy (OMIT) using a toothpaste delivery vehicle. RESULTS: Of the participants who completed the survey, ranking scores (mean ± SD) for SCIT, SLIT, AIT, and OMIT, with 1 being the highest rank, were 3.36 ± 1.02, 2.03 ± 0.92, 2.30 ± 1.02, and 2.32 ± 1.05, respectively. The number of participants who ranked SCIT, SLIT, AIT, or OMIT as their number 1 choice was 24 (10.5%), 79 (34.6%), 61 (26.8%), and 64 (28.1%), respectively. When comparing first choice rankings, there were no statistically significant differences between SLIT, AIT, or OMIT, yet all 3 groups ranked higher than SCIT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: SCIT earned the lowest mean rank and had the least number of participants rank it as the most preferred method. Among the other 3 choices, by mean scores, SLIT was preferred most compared to either AIT or OMIT; but when considering first choices only, there were no significant differences in preference. Most of the study participants identified the convenience of home IT administration as the most important factor in their ranking.

Serial administration of a modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale for delirium screening.

OBJECTIVES: Because delirium is a common yet frequently unrecognized condition, this study sought to design a brief screening tool for a core feature of mental status and to validate the instrument as a serial assessment for delirium. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary VA Hospital in New England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 95 veterans admitted to the medical service. METHODS: A consensus panel developed a modified version of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) to capture alterations in consciousness. Upon admission, and daily thereafter, patients were screened with a modified RASS (mRASS) and independently underwent a comprehensive mental status interview by a geriatric expert, who determined whether the criteria for delirium were met. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio (LR) of the mRASS for delirium are reported. RESULTS: As a single assessment, the mRASS had a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 93% for delirium (LR, 9.4). When used to detect change, serial mRASS assessments had a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92% (LR, 8.9) in both prevalent and incident delirium. When prevalent cases were excluded, any change in the mRASS had a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 92% for incident delirium (LR, 10.2) CONCLUSION: When administered daily, the mRASS has good sensitivity and specificity for incident delirium. Given the brevity of the instrument (<30 seconds), consideration should be given to incorporating the modified RASS as a daily screening measure for consciousness and delirium.

Validation of a medical record-based delirium risk assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To improve identification of patients at high risk for delirium, this study developed a chart abstraction tool for delirium risk and validated the tool against clinical expert diagnosis of delirium. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary Veterans Affairs hospital in New England. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred veterans admitted to the medical service. MEASUREMENTS: While admitted, each participant underwent serial assessments for delirium by a clinical expert. Using the four criteria of a validated delirium prediction rule (cognitive impairment, sensory deficit, severe illness, and dehydration), chart review terms were selected for each criterion, and delirium risk was the sum of criteria present (range: 0-4; 4 = worst). After discharge, a nurse blinded to the expert's diagnosis completed the chart tool. RESULTS: The participants were mostly male (94%) and older (mean age 81 ± 7), and 23% developed overall delirium (14% incident). The rate of overall delirium was 11% in participants with zero risk factors, 18% in those with one or two, and 50% in those with three or four (P = .01; c-statistic 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.76). For incident delirium, the rates were 11%, 13%, and 25%, respectively (P = .53; c-statistic 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42-0.74). Discharge to a rehabilitation center or nursing home increased with increasing delirium risk (0%, 18%, 60%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: A chart abstraction tool was effective at identifying overall delirium risk but not incident delirium risk. Although the tool cannot replace clinical assessment and diagnosis of delirium, the use of this tool as an educational, clinical, or quality measurement aid warrants additional study.

Cognitive screening in community-dwelling elders: performance on the clock-in-the-box.

BACKGROUND: The Clock-in-the-Box is a rapid (2-minute) cognitive screening tool. The purpose of this study was to compare the Clock-in-the-Box with the Mini-Mental State Exam and neuropsychologic tests; to determine Clock-in-the-Box score normative values by age and education group; and to determine if the Clock-in-the-Box score is associated with measures of physical function. METHODS: Community-dwelling older participants in the Boston area were recruited for a prospective, longitudinal study in which they completed a variety of cognitive and functional assessments. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n=798; mean age [± standard deviation]=78.2 [±5.5] years; 14 [±3] mean years of education) completed in-home assessments of cognition (Clock-in-the-Box and Mini-Mental State Exam), measures of independent function (Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living), and measures of physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery). The mean Mini-Mental State Exam score was 27.1 (±1.6; range 0-30 [0 worst]), and the mean Clock-in-the-Box score was 6.2 (±1.6; range 0-8 [0 worst]). Performance on the Clock-in-the-Box was correlated (Spearman) with the Mini-Mental State Exam (r=0.49, P<.001) and neuropsychologic measures (r=0.37-0.50; P<.001). Higher Clock-in-the-Box score was significantly associated with no difficulty in Activities of Daily Living (χ(2) = 39.6, P<.001) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (χ(2) = 35.5, P<.001). In addition, higher Clock-in-the-Box scores were associated with higher scores on the Short Physical Performance Battery (F=5.4, P<.001). CONCLUSION: The Clock-in-the-Box is a brief cognitive screening test that is correlated with the Mini-Mental State Exam, neuropsychologic tests, and measures of independent and physical function in community-dwelling older adults.

Vital signs in older patients: age-related changes.

Vital signs are objective measures of physiological function that are used to monitor acute and chronic disease and thus serve as a basic communication tool about patient status. The purpose of this analysis was to review age-related changes of traditional vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature) with a focus on age-related molecular changes, organ system changes, systemic changes, and altered compensation to stressors. The review found that numerous physiological and pathological changes may occur with age and alter vital signs. These changes tend to reduce the ability of organ systems to adapt to physiological stressors, particularly in frail older patients. Because of the diversity of age-related physiological changes and comorbidities in an individual, single-point measurements of vital signs have less sensitivity in detecting disease processes. However, serial vital sign assessments may have increased sensitivity, especially when viewed in the context of individualized reference ranges. Vital sign change with age may be subtle because of reduced physiological ranges. However, change from an individual reference range may indicate important warning signs and thus may require additional evaluation to understand potential underlying pathological processes. As a result, individualized reference ranges may provide improved sensitivity in frail, older patients.