"What choice do we have?" Reactive and proactive decision-making for aging in place with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Promoting options for aging in place (AIP) has broad appeal to policymakers and professionals providing services to persons living with dementia (PWD). However, the benefits or burdens of AIP likely vary among individuals and families. We sought to describe factors influencing decision-making to age in place versus seek a higher level of residential care for PWD. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken as part of a larger mixed-methods study utilizing semi-structured interviews with PWD, family care partners, and dementia clinicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with constant comparison. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation within subgroups. RESULTS: We conducted 74 interviews among 14 PWD, 36 care partners, and 24 clinicians. Preferences for AIP were driven by (1) desire to preserve independence, (2) a sense that the "best care" is delivered by loved ones and in a familiar environment, (3) distrust and fear of care facilities, and (4) caregiver guilt. PWD and care partners frequently considered moving from home as a "last resort" and wanted to avoid planning for future care needs. Many decisions to move were reactive and triggered by patient safety events, physical dependency, or the loss of caregiver. Proactive decision-making was facilitated by (1) prior experience witnessing the challenges of caring for a person with advanced dementia in the home; and (2) having substantial financial resources such that participants could seek major home adaptations or avoid "lower quality" institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions regarding care setting for PWD frequently do not feel like a choice and are made under imperfect conditions. Programs using AIP as an outcome measure should recognize the various patient-centered and non-patient-centered factors that influence such choices, and interventions should be designed to promote more informed and equitable decision-making for care setting in dementia.

Measuring Quality-weighted Hospital-Free Days in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Modified Delphi Study.

Rationale: Hospital-free days (HFDs), a measure of the number of days alive spent outside the hospital, is increasingly used as an endpoint in studies of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) or other critical and serious illnesses. Current approaches to measuring HFDs do not account for decrements in functional status or quality of life that ARF survivors and family members value. Objectives: To develop an acceptable approach to measure quality-weighted HFDs using patient-reported outcomes. Methods: We conducted a four-round modified Delphi process among ARF experts: those with lived or professional experience. Experts rated survivorship domains, instrument and data collection characteristics, and methods to translate responses into quality-weighted HFDs. The consensus threshold was that ⩾70% of respondents rated an item "totally acceptable" or "acceptable" and ⩽15% of respondents rated the item "totally unacceptable," "unacceptable," or "slightly unacceptable." Results: Fifty-seven experts participated in round 1. Response rates were 82-93% for subsequent rounds. Priority survivorship domains were physical function and health-related quality of life. Participants reached a consensus that data collection during ARF recovery should take less than 15 minutes per assessment, allow surrogate completion when patients are unable, and continue for at least 24 months of follow-up. Using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire to quality weight HFDs met consensus criteria for acceptability. A majority of panelists preferred quality-weighted HFDs to unweighted HFDs or survival for use in future ARF studies. Conclusions: Quality-weighting HFDs using patient and/or surrogate responses to the EQ-5D captured stakeholder priorities and was acceptable to this Delphi panel.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Noninferiority Margin for Hospital-Free Days to Assess Interventions.

This survey study examined perceptions of patients, caregivers and health care professionals on the number of hospital-free days required for detection of a minimum clinically important difference or noninferiority margin of new interventions.