Multiple Chronic Conditions among Seriously Ill Adults Receiving Palliative Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murali KP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9040129 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Multiple Chronic Conditions among Seriously Ill Adults Receiving Palliative Care.
Murali Komal P KP Yu Gary G Merriman John D JD Vorderstrasse Allison A Kelley Amy S AS Brody Abraham A AA
Western journal of nursing research 20210825 1
The objective of this study was to characterize multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) among seriously ill adults receiving palliative care at the end of life. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify latent subgroups of seriously ill older adults based on a baseline Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) measurement, a measure of comorbidity burden, and mortality risk. The three latent subgroups were: (1) low to moderate CCI with MCC, (2) high CCI with MCC, and (3) high CCI and metastatic cancer ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4671283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIncreasing inpatient palliative care delivery is prioritized, but large-scale, experimental evidence of its effectiveness is lacking.ObjectiveTo determine whether ordering palliative care consultation by default for seriously ill hospitalized patients without requiring greater palliative care staffing increased consultations and improved outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial was conducted among patients 65 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or kidney failure admitted from March 21, 2016, through November 14, 2018, to 11 US hospitals. Outcome data collection ended on January 31, 2019.InterventionOrdering palliative care consultation by default for eligible patients, while allowing clinicians to opt-out, was compared with usual care, in which clinicians could choose to order palliative care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was hospital length of stay, with deaths coded as the longest length of stay, and secondary end points included palliative care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). A higher percentage of patients in the default order group received palliative care consultation than in the standard care group (43.9% vs 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.17 [95% CI, 4.59-5.81]) and received consultation earlier (mean [SD] of 3.4 [2.6] days after admission vs 4.6 [4.8] days; P < .001). Length of stay did not differ between the default order and usual care groups (percent difference in median length of stay, -0.53% [95% CI, -3.51% to 2.53%]). Patients in the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.21-1.63]) and discharge to hospice (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.07-1.57]) than the usual care group, and similar in-hospital mortality (4.7% vs 4.2%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.08]).Conclusions and relevanceDefault palliative care consult orders did not reduce length of stay for older, hospitalized patients with advanced chronic illnesses, but did improve the rate and timing of consultation and some end-of-life care processes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505035.
| S-EPMC10792472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesLimited implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis may contribute to end-of-life care that is intensive and not patient centered. We determined whether a learning collaborative for hemodialysis center providers improved delivery of palliative care best practices.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsTen US hemodialysis centers participated in a pre-post study targeting seriously ill patients between April 2019 and September 2020. Three practices were prioritized: screening for serious illness, goals of care discussions, and use of a palliative dialysis care pathway. The collaborative educational bundle consisted of learning sessions, communication skills training, and implementation support. The primary outcome was change in the probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients. Health care utilization was a secondary outcome, and implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and penetration were assessed using mixed methods.ResultsOne center dropped out due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Among the remaining nine centers, 20% (273 of 1395) of patients were identified as seriously ill preimplementation, and 16% (203 of 1254) were identified as seriously ill postimplementation. From the preimplementation to postimplementation period, the adjusted probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients increased by 34.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.4 to 68.5). There was no difference in mortality or in utilization of palliative hemodialysis, hospice referral, or hemodialysis discontinuation. Screening for serious illness was widely adopted, and goals of care discussions were adopted with incomplete integration. There was limited adoption of a palliative dialysis care pathway.ConclusionsA learning collaborative for hemodialysis centers spanning the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was associated with adoption of serious illness screening and goals of care discussions as well as improved documentation of advance care planning for seriously ill patients.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberPathways Project: Kidney Supportive Care, NCT04125537.
| S-EPMC9528276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost seriously ill older adults visit the emergency department (ED) near the end of life, yet no feasible method exists to empower them to formulate their care goals in this setting.ObjectiveTo develop an intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to formulate their future care goals in the ED.DesignProspective intervention development study.SettingIn a single, urban, academic ED, we refined the prototype intervention with ED clinicians and patient advisors. We tested the intervention for its acceptability in English-speaking patients ≥65 years old with serious illness or patients whose treating ED clinician answered "No" to the "surprise question" ("would not be surprised if died in the next 12 months"). We excluded patients with advance directives or whose treating ED clinician determined the patient to be inappropriate.MeasurementsOur primary outcome was perceived acceptability of our intervention. Secondary outcomes included perceived main intent and stated attitude toward future care planning.ResultsWe refined the intervention with 16 mock clinical encounters of ED clinicians and patient advisors. Then, we administered the refined intervention to 23 patients and conducted semistructured interviews afterward. Mean age of patients was 76 years, 65% were women, and 43% of patients had metastatic cancer. Most participants (n = 17) positively assessed our intervention, identified questions for their doctors, and reflected on how they feel about their future care.ConclusionAn intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to understand the importance of future care planning in the ED was developed, and they found it acceptable.
| S-EPMC6391608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of 2 or more chronic conditions, is common among older adults with cardiovascular disease. These individuals are at increased risk for poor health outcomes and account for a large proportion of health care utilization. Clinicians are challenged with the heterogeneity of this population, the complexity of the treatment regimen, limited high-quality evidence, and fragmented health care systems. Each treatment recommended by a clinical practice guideline for a single cardiovascular disease might be rational, but the combination of all evidence-based recommendations can be impractical or even harmful to individuals with multimorbidity. These challenges can be overcome with a patient-centred approach that incorporates the individual's preferences, relevant evidence, the overall and condition-specific prognosis, clinical feasibility of treatments, and interactions with other treatments and coexisting chronic conditions. The ultimate goal is to maximize benefits and minimize harms by optimizing adherence to the most essential treatments, while acknowledging trade-offs between treatments for different health conditions. It might be necessary to discontinue therapies that are not essential or potentially harmful to decrease the risk of drug-drug and drug-disease interactions from polypharmacy. A decision to initiate, withhold, or stop a treatment should be on the basis of the time horizon to benefits vs the individual's prognosis. In this review, we illustrate how cardiologists and general practitioners can adopt a patient-centred approach to focus on the aspects of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular health that have the greatest effect on functioning and quality of life in older adults with cardiovascular disease and multimorbidity.
| S-EPMC5003648 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7015118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOlder 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.ObjectiveTo describe the outcome goals and health care preferences of this population with MCCs.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.ExposuresGuided 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 measuresFrequencies 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.ResultsMost 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 relevanceParticipants 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.
| S-EPMC7991967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeGiven the shortage of palliative care specialists in the United States, to ensure quality of care for patients with serious, life-threatening illness, generalist-level palliative care competencies need to be defined and taught. The purpose of this study was to define essential competencies for medical students and internal medicine and family medicine (IM/FM) residents through a national survey of palliative care experts.MethodProposed competencies were derived from existing hospice and palliative medicine fellowship competencies and revised to be developmentally appropriate for students and residents. In spring 2012, the authors administered a Web-based, national cross-sectional survey of palliative care educational experts to assess ratings and rankings of proposed competencies and competency domains.ResultsThe authors identified 18 comprehensive palliative care competencies for medical students and IM/FM residents, respectively. Over 95% of survey respondents judged the competencies as comprehensive and developmentally appropriate (survey response rate = 72%, 71/98). Using predefined cutoff criteria, experts identified 7 medical student and 13 IM/FM resident competencies as essential. Communication and pain/symptom management were rated as the most critical domains.ConclusionsThis national survey of palliative care experts defines comprehensive and essential palliative care competencies for medical students and IM/FM residents that are specific, measurable, and can be used to report educational outcomes; provide a sequence for palliative care curricula in undergraduate and graduate medical education; and highlight the importance of educating medical trainees in communication and pain management. Next steps include seeking input and endorsement from stakeholders in the broader medical education community.
| S-EPMC4077186 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8219473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesClinician empathy is associated with improved communication and clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that, when clinicians express empathy, families are more likely to deepen discussions, and that clinicians express less empathy in care conferences with language interpretation.MethodsProspective, mixed methods cohort study of English and interpreted audio-recorded transcripts of care conferences for pediatric patients with serious illness hospitalized at a single urban, quaternary medical institution between January 2018 and January 2021. Directed content analysis identified empathic opportunities, clinician empathetic statements or missed opportunities, and family responses. Clinician empathic statements were "buried" if immediately followed by more clinician medical talk. Descriptive analyses summarized demographics and codes. χ2 analyses summarized differences among language interpretation and family responses.ResultsTwenty-nine patient-family dyads participated. Twenty-two (81%) family members were female. Eleven (39%) used language interpretation (8 Spanish, 2 Vietnamese, 1 Somali). Families created 210 empathic opportunities. Clinicians responded with unburied empathy 80 times (38%, no differences for English versus interpreted care conferences, P = .88). When clinicians buried empathy or missed empathic opportunities, families responded with alliance (agreement, gratitude, or emotional deepening) 14% and 15% of the time, respectively. When clinicians responded with unburied empathy, families responded with alliance 83% of the time (P < .01).ConclusionsOur study suggests that clinician empathic expression does not differ when language interpretation is used in pediatric care conferences. Clinicians often miss opportunities to express empathy, or they bury it by medical talk. Although unburied empathy created opportunities for relationship-building and family-sharing, buried empathy negatively impacted these domains similarly to no empathic expression.
| S-EPMC9986854 | biostudies-literature