Acceptability and use of an online health priorities self-identification tool for older adults: A qualitative investigation.

Objective: To examine the use of a web-based, self-directed health priorities identification tool for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Methods: We recruited a gender- and racially-diverse, highly educated sample of older adults with MCCs to engage with our My Health Priorities tool, then complete a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis was used to examine interview transcripts. Results: Twenty-one participants shared perspectives on the acceptability and use of the tool. Three themes (with eleven subthemes) were generated to describe: website user experience feedback, the content of the health priorities identification process, and the tool's capacity to empower communication and decision making. Conclusion: Participants found this tool acceptable and easy to use, describing a variety of benefits of the priorities self-identification process and offered suggestions for refinement and broader implementation. Older adults with limited internet navigation abilities or misconceptions about the self-directed process may benefit from clinicians clarifying the purpose of the process or initiating priorities-aligned discussions. Innovation: This novel tool can help older adults with MCCs define what matters most for their health and healthcare, informing a variety of health decisions. This tool may enable and motivate patients to lead health priorities decision-making discussions with clinicians and care partners.

Emergency department care transition barriers: A qualitative study of care partners of older adults with cognitive impairment.

INTRODUCTION: After emergency department (ED) discharge, persons living with cognitive impairment (PLWCI) and their care partners are particularly at risk for adverse outcomes. We sought to identify the barriers experienced by care partners of PLWCI during ED discharge care transitions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 25 care partners of PLWCI discharged from four EDs. We used the validated 4AT and care partner-completed AD8 screening tools, respectively, to exclude care partners of older adults with concern for delirium and include care partners of older adults with cognitive impairment. We conducted recorded, semi-structured interviews using a standardized guide, and two team members coded and analyzed all professional transcriptions to identify emerging themes and representative quotations. RESULTS: Care partners' mean age was 56.7 years, 80% were female, and 24% identified as African American. We identified four major barriers regarding ED discharge care transitions among care partners of PLWCI: (1) unique care considerations while in the ED setting impact the perceived success of the care transition, (2) poor communication and lack of care partner engagement was a commonplace during the ED discharge process, (3) care partners experienced challenges and additional responsibilities when aiding during acute illness and recovery phases, and (4) navigating the health care system after an ED encounter was perceived as difficult by care partners. DISCUSSION: Our findings demonstrate critical barriers faced during ED discharge care transitions among care partners of PLWCI. Findings from this work may inform the development of novel care partner-reported outcome measures as well as ED discharge care transition interventions targeting care partners.

Emergency department-to-community care transition barriers: A qualitative study of older adults.

BACKGROUND: Over one-half of older adults are discharged to the community after emergency department (ED) visits, and studies have shown there is increased risk of adverse health outcomes in the immediate post-discharge period. Understanding the experiences of older adults during ED-to-community care transitions has the potential to improve geriatric emergency clinical care and inform intervention development. We therefore sought to assess barriers experienced by older adults during ED-to-community care transitions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative analysis of community-dwelling cognitively intact patients aged 65 years and older receiving care in four diverse EDs from a single U.S. healthcare system. We constructed a conceptual framework a priori to guide the development and iterative revision of a codebook, used purposive sampling, and conducted recorded, semi-structured interviews using a standardized guide. Two researchers coded the professionally transcribed data using a combined deductive and inductive approach and analyzed transcripts to identify dominant themes and representative quotations. RESULTS: Among 25 participants, 20 (80%) were women and 17 (68%) were white. We identified four barriers during the ED-to-community care transition: (1) ED discharge process was abrupt with missing information regarding symptom explanation and performed testing, (2) navigating follow-up outpatient clinical care was challenging, (3) new physical limitations and fears hinder performance of baseline activities, and (4) major and minor ramifications for caregivers impact an older adult's willingness to request or accept assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults identified barriers to successful ED-to-community care transitions that can inform the development of novel and effective interventions.

Outcome Goals and Health Care Preferences of Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) vary in their health outcome goals and the health care that they prefer to receive to achieve these goals. Objective: To describe the outcome goals and health care preferences of this population with MCCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included participants in the Patient Priorities Care study who underwent health priorities identification from February 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, in a primary care practice. Patients eligible to participate were 65 years or older, English speaking, and had at least 3 chronic conditions; in addition, they used at least 10 medications, saw at least 2 specialists, or had at least 2 emergency department visits or 1 hospitalization during the past year. Of 236 eligible patients, 163 (69%) agreed to participate in this study. Data were analyzed from August 1 to October 31, 2020. Exposures: Guided by facilitators, participants identified their core values, as many as 3 actionable and realistic outcome goals, health-related barriers to these goals, and as many as 3 helpful and 3 bothersome health care activities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequencies were ascertained for outcome goals and health care preferences. Preferences included health care activities (medications, health care visits, procedures, diagnostic tests, and self-management) reported as either helpful or bothersome. Results: Most of the 163 participants were White (158 [96.9%]) and women (109 [66.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 77.6 (7.6) years. Of 459 goals, the most common encompassed meals and other activities with family and friends (111 [24.2%]), shopping (28 [6.1%]), and exercising (21 [4.6%]). Twenty individuals (12.3%) desired to live independently without specifying necessary activities. Of 312 barriers identified, the most common were pain (128 [41.0%]), fatigue (45 [14.4%]), unsteadiness (42 [13.5%]), and dyspnea (19 [6.1%]). Similar proportions of patients identified at least 1 medication that was helpful (130 [79.8%]) or bothersome (128 [78.5%]). Medications most commonly cited as helpful were pain medications, including nonopiods (36 of 55 users [65.5%]) and opioids (15 of 27 users [55.6%]); sleep medications (27 of 51 users [52.9%]); and respiratory inhalants (19 of 45 [42.2%]). Most often mentioned as bothersome were statins (25 of 97 users [25.8%]) and antidepressants (13 of 40 users [32.5%]). Thirty-two participants (19.6%) reported using too many medications. Health care visits were identified as helpful by 43 participants (26.4%); 15 (9.2%) reported too many visits. Procedures were named helpful by 38 participants (23.3%); 24 (14.7%) cited unwanted procedures. Among 48 participants with diabetes, monitoring of glucose levels was doable for 18 (37.5%) and too bothersome for 9 (18.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Participants identified realistic and actionable goals while varying in health care activities deemed helpful or bothersome. The goals and health care preferences of more diverse populations must be explored. Previous work suggests that clinicians can use this information in decision-making.

Association of Patient Priorities-Aligned Decision-Making With Patient Outcomes and Ambulatory Health Care Burden Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Health care may be burdensome and of uncertain benefit for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Aligning health care with an individual's health priorities may improve outcomes and reduce burden. Objective: To evaluate whether patient priorities care (PPC) is associated with a perception of more goal-directed and less burdensome care compared with usual care (UC). Design, Setting, and Participants: Nonrandomized clinical trial with propensity adjustment conducted at 1 PPC and 1 UC site of a Connecticut multisite primary care practice that provides care to almost 15% of the state's residents. Participants included 163 adults aged 65 years or older who had 3 or more chronic conditions cared for by 10 primary care practitioners (PCPs) trained in PPC and 203 similar patients who received UC from 7 PCPs not trained in PPC. Participant enrollment occurred between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018; follow-up extended for up to 9 months (ended September 30, 2018). Interventions: Patient priorities care, an approach to decision-making that includes patients' identifying their health priorities (ie, specific health outcome goals and health care preferences) and clinicians aligning their decision-making to achieve these health priorities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included change in patients' Older Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (O-PACIC), CollaboRATE, and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores; electronic health record documentation of decision-making based on patients' health priorities; medications and self-management tasks added or stopped; and diagnostic tests, referrals, and procedures ordered or avoided. Results: Of the 366 patients, 235 (64.2%) were female and 350 (95.6%) were white. Compared with the UC group, the PPC group was older (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.6] vs 77.6 [7.6] years) and had lower physical and mental health scores. At follow-up, PPC participants reported a 5-point greater decrease in TBQ score than those who received UC (ß [SE], -5.0 [2.04]; P = .01) using a weighted regression model with inverse probability of PCP assignment weights; no differences were seen in O-PACIC or CollaboRATE scores. Health priorities-based decisions were mentioned in clinical visit notes for 108 of 163 (66.3%) PPC vs 0 of 203 (0%) UC participants. Compared with UC patients, PPC patients were more likely to have medications stopped (weighted comparison, 52.0% vs 33.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.95) and less likely to have self-management tasks (57.5% vs 62.1%; AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84) and diagnostic tests (80.8% vs 86.4%; AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) ordered. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that patient priorities care may be associated with reduced treatment burden and unwanted health care. Care aligned with patients' priorities may be feasible and effective for older adults with MCCs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03600389.

Challenges and strategies in patients' health priorities-aligned decision-making for older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVES: While patients' health priorities should inform healthcare, strategies for doing so are lacking for patients with multiple conditions. We describe challenges to, and strategies that support, patients' priorities-aligned decision-making. DESIGN: Participant observation qualitative study. SETTING: Primary care and cardiology practices in Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS: Ten primary care clinicians, five cardiologists, and the Patient Priorities implementation team (four geriatricians, physician expert in clinician training, behavioral medicine expert). The patients discussed were ≥ 66 years with >3 chronic conditions and ≥10 medications or saw ≥ two specialists. EXPOSURE: Following initial training and experience in providing Patient Priorities Care, the clinicians and Patient Priorities implementation team participated in 21 case-based, group discussions (10 face-to-face;11 telephonic). Using emergent learning (i.e. learning which arises from interactions among the participants), participants discussed challenges, posed solutions, and worked together to determine how to align care options with the health priorities of 35 patients participating in the Patient Priorities Care pilot. MAIN OUTCOMES: Challenges to, and strategies for, aligning decision-making with patient's health priorities. RESULTS: Categories of challenges discussed among participants included uncertainty, complexity, and multiplicity of problems and treatments; difficulty switching to patients' priorities as the focus of decision-making; and differing perspectives between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians. Strategies identified to support patient priorities-aligned decision-making included starting with one thing that matters most to each patient; conducting serial trials of starting, stopping, or continuing interventions; focusing on function (i.e. achieving patient's desired activities) rather than eliminating symptoms; basing communications, decision-making, and effectiveness on patients' priorities not solely on diseases; and negotiating shared decisions when there are differences in perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: The discrete set of challenges encountered and the implementable strategies identified suggest that patient priorities-aligned decision-making in the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions is feasible, albeit complicated. Findings require replication in additional settings and determination of their effect on patient outcomes.

Perspectives of Patients in Identifying Their Values-Based Health Priorities.

OBJECTIVES: Patient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI. DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis. SETTING: In-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process. MEASUREMENTS: Open-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement. RESULTS: Patient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.

Feasibility of Implementing Patient Priorities Care for Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions.

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) receive care that is fragmented and burdensome, lacks evidence, and most importantly is not focused on what matters most to them. An implementation feasibility study of Patient Priorities Care (PPC), a new approach to care that is based on health outcome goals and healthcare preferences, was conducted. This study took place at 1 primary care and 1 cardiology practice in Connecticut and involved 9 primary care providers (PCPs), 5 cardiologists, and 119 older adults with MCCs. PPC was implemented using methods based on a practice change framework and continuous plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Core elements included leadership support, clinical champions, priorities facilitators, training, electronic health record (EHR) support, workflow development and continuous modification, and collaborative learning. PPC processes for clinic workflow and decision-making were developed, and clinicians were trained. After 10 months, 119 older adults enrolled and had priorities identified; 92 (77%) returned to their PCP after priorities identification. In 56 (46%) of these visits, clinicians documented patient priorities discussions. Workflow challenges identified and solved included patient enrollment lags, EHR documentation of priorities discussions, and interprofessional communication. Time for clinicians to provide PPC remains a challenge, as does decision-making, including clinicians' perceptions that they are already doing so; clinicians' concerns about guidelines, metrics, and unrealistic priorities; and differences between PCPs and patients and between PCPs and cardiologists about treatment decisions. PDSA cycles and continuing collaborative learning with national experts and peers are taking place to address workflow and clinical decision-making challenges. Translating disease-based to priorities-aligned decision-making appears challenging but feasible to implement in a clinical setting.

Development of a Clinically Feasible Process for Identifying Individual Health Priorities.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a values-based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision-making. DESIGN: Prospective development and feasibility study. SETTING: Primary care practice in Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64). INTERVENTION: The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user-centered design framework-ideate → prototype → test →redesign-to develop and refine the value-based patient priorities care process and medical record template with trained clinician facilitators. MEASUREMENTS: We used descriptive statistics of quantitative measures (percentage accepted invitation and completed template, duration of process) and qualitative analysis of barriers and enablers (challenges and solutions identified, facilitator perceptions). RESULTS: We developed and refined a process for identifying patient health priorities that was typically completed in 35 to 45 minutes over 2 sessions; 64 patients completed the process. Qualitative analyses were used to elucidate the characteristics and training needed for the patient priorities facilitators, as well as perceived benefits and challenges of the process. Refinements based on our experience and feedback include streamlining the process for greater feasibility, balancing fidelity to the process while customizing to individuals, encouraging patients to share their priorities with their clinicians, and simplifying the template transmitted to clinicians. CONCLUSION: Trained facilitators conducted this process in a busy primary care practice, suggesting that patient priorities identification is feasible and acceptable, although testing in additional settings is necessary. We hope to show that clinicians can align care with patients' health priorities.