Patient Priorities Care: State of the Art

happy
Photo credit: Shutterstock

The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published 3 related articles on redesigning healthcare around patient priorities, which I’ve linked to below. This work represents the leading edge of incorporating patient priorities into decision making for older adults. The rationale (previously discussed on this blog here, here, and here) is that for many older adults, the applicability of disease-specific guidelines are unclear; many of our therapies (in cardiology and elsewhere) were studied in relatively young patients with few comorbidities. In the setting of limited evidence, the concept of patient priorities care therefore emphasizes eliciting what matters most to patients – and designing care plans around specific, actionable goals.

Patient priorities care in practice is complex since it requires training of clinicians and support staff, engagement of patients, and streamlining of health information technology, all within our current time-limited healthcare environment. Nonetheless, the pilot studies by Naik et al. and Blaum et al. demonstrate that this care model can be effectively implemented in practice. The accompanying editorial by Applegate et al., which states that “Clinical guidelines could be revised to integrate the tradeoffs between multimorbidity, functional status, and polypharmacy in making management decisions” represents a longstanding principle of geriatrics which appears to be gaining traction in other fields (including cardiology).

Links below:
Naik et al., “Development of a Clinically-Feasible Process for Identifying Patient Health Priorities.”

Blaum et al., “Feasibility of Implementing Patient Priorities Care for Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions.”

Applegate et al. “Implementing ‘Patient-Centered Care’: A Revolutionary Change in Health Care Delivery.”

 

By: John Dodson, MD, MPH

RUSK Insights Podcast Series: Geriatric Cardiology

I recently was interviewed by Dr. Thomas Elwood for the NYU Langone Rusk Podcast Series, available here. I’d encourage people to listen to both sessions; Dr. Elwood asked a wide range of detailed questions relating to Geriatric Cardiology both locally and nationally. Here are a few key points:

  1. Geriatric cardiology is a growing field. Geriatric cardiology has emerged in response to an aging population coupled with advances in cardiovascular therapies. Several programs have been started in the U.S. in the past several years, most combining both patient care and research components.
  2. Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse outcomes in myocardial infarction. Multiple studies have shown frailty, a state of increased vulnerability to physiologic stressors, to be associated with both immediate consequences (procedure-related complications) and long-term sequelae (recurrent myocardial infarction, mortality). The optimal management of frail myocardial infarction patients remains unclear.
  3. Older adults are frequently excluded from clinical trials. While this is improving, thanks to the efforts of funding agencies, patient advocates, and the research community, we’re still largely operating in the dark when it comes to applying evidence-based therapies to patients in their 80’s and 90’s.
  4. Family caregiving is more critical than ever for recovery. As we move towards shorter hospital stays and lower use of skilled nursing facilities, we are asking a lot more of family members than we used to during the early recovery phase. This can lead to both physical and emotional burdens on these caregivers, which the healthcare system is currently under-equipped to address.
  5. There are multiple barriers to cardiac rehabilitation in older adults. These include transportation, cost, and lack of available facilities. Mobile health (mHealth) strategies may provide a means to increase access, but the efficacy of these programs in older adults remains poorly understood.

 

By: John Dodson, MD, MPH

Shared Decision-Making in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Headshot_Grant_2018Several weeks ago I had the pleasure of presenting our findings from a qualitative research study we conducted at the AGS 2018 annual meeting, investigating cardiologists’ perspectives and familiarity with shared decision-making (SDM) in older adults after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). SDM has emerged in the literature as a way to move towards patient-centered care and has significant potential to enhance patient adherence, reduce undesired treatments, and improve overall satisfaction with care. In our study, we sought to discover the degree to which practicing cardiologists understood SDM, and whether it was applicable to their practice with older adult patients – particularly in the setting of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. Five major themes emerged from these interviews:

  1. Age alone is not a major contraindication to intervention.

Our respondents consistently stated that age would not deter them from sending a patient to cardiac catheterization. Instead, they generally brought up “what kind of 80,” distinguishing chronological and biological age. Further, cardiologists generally reported treating older adults similarly to how they would treat their younger counterparts.

  1. SDM is important in the setting of NSTEMI, and not practical in STEMI:

Respondents felt that SDM was useful among patients hospitalized for NSTEMI (who represent the largest proportion of older adults with AMI). Conversely, due to the acuity of STEMI (with system-wide pressures on prompt reperfusion therapy), there was near-universal agreement that SDM was not practical in this setting.

  1. Dementia and functional status emerged as the major contraindications to intervention:

While age was not itself a major contraindication to intervention, age-related impairments such as dementia and functional status were consistently noted as reasons cardiologists would adopt a more conservative approach to care.

  1. There was some variation in cardiologists’ interpretation of SDM:

While most cardiologists saw SDM as a move away from paternalism towards patient-centered care, there was some variation in what the meaning of “shared” was among our respondents. While some respondents felt it was shared between the cardiologist and her patient, others thought it was between the patient and family members, and still others thought it was between the provider and her colleagues.

  1. A personalized (and geriatric-informed) risk calculator may help to facilitate SDM in this population for cardiologists:

Cardiologists continually highlighted the paucity of data to guide their care in the older adult population, and emphasized that a risk calculator tailored to these patients would allow them to give more specific and personalized information in order to promote SDM with accurate calculations of risk and benefit.

Our findings have several implications. The take-home message was that cardiologists generally accepted SDM as an optimal model of care, particularly in settings where the risk/benefit ratio was uncertain, but experienced some challenges with accurate prognostication. Future efforts at personalized risk calculators, tailored to older patients’ phenotypes, may help to promote SDM in practice.

 

By: Eleonore Grant, BA

Eleonore Grant was an Associate Research Coordinator at NYU Langone Health and coordinated studies on shared decision-making. She will be matriculating at medical school this Fall. 

Hospital at Home

Orlando-Songquan Deng_shutterstock_146393459
                                                                                                                                   Photo credit: Shutterstock

Last week marked the annual American Geriatrics Society (AGS) meeting which brings together geriatricians and other healthcare professionals (including a growing contingent of geriatric cardiologists) to highlight the latest in research related to caring for older adults. One of the highlights was the Henderson Lecture, given by Dr. Bruce Leff (Johns Hopkins) on the future of healthcare for older adults moving out of the hospital and into the home. The general concept is that the hospital can be a disorienting environment for older adults, and there are concomitant risks (including hospital-acquired infections, falls, delirium, deconditioning due to immobility) that may be reduced by providing acute care at home. Concomitantly, cost pressures are leading health systems and insurers to think of more “out of the box” solutions to avoid the high costs associated with traditional hospitalizations.

Data on hospital-at-home models have been encouraging. For example, a meta-analysis of over 60 clinical trials in 2012 demonstrated hospital-at-home led to reduced mortality, hospital readmission, and cost. The potential mechanisms are clear: a familiar environment reduces the risk of delirium, which has multiple adverse consequences. Opportunistic infections are much less likely. Family caregivers are more immediately available to provide comfort.

Conversely, it’s clear that many of today’s hospitalized patients are too ill (and at high risk for decompensation) for acute medical care to be safely delivered at home. Within cardiology, this includes conditions that are procedure-intensive (acute myocardial infarction) or require high-level monitoring (cardiogenic shock, unstable arrhythmia). But I think many other acute cardiovascular conditions common in older adults could be managed with reasonable ease at home (mild decompensated heart failure comes to mind), provided adequate resources. Barriers to more widespread adoption of home-base models include payment for these programs (currently a work in progress), as well as the logistics of providing equipment (Dr. Leff noted in his lecture how difficult it was to deliver something as simple as oxygen).

Nonetheless, the paradigm holds considerable promise, and I’d expect health systems to adopt more of these programs in the next 5-10 years. If nothing else, changing demographics (specifically the aging of the U.S. population) will demand more innovative solutions like this.

 

By: John Dodson, MD, MPH

Language Matters

ashok-krishnaswamiI recently spoke at a local research conference on the topic of Geriatric Cardiology. My first slide was titled “Language Matters”.1    It referred to an editorial where Ms. Nancy Lundebjerg and her coauthors pointed out that the words and phrases chosen to describe older adults, either emanating from conscious or unconscious thoughts, will likely lead to certain actions. In fact, they note that the language currently used has been “an obstacle to convey to the public and policymakers the advances that have been made in healthcare and aging services.”

Furthermore, the language we choose may lead to certain biases that we develop against older adults, the possible beginnings of ageism. Ageism is an “ism”, unlike the other two, that can potentially affect all of us. Although it can be overt it is often unintentional. It refers to the discrimination against older adults “based on negative or inaccurate stereotypes”. To combat these negative or inaccurate stereotypes we must first be aware of them. I am referring to:

  • Words that have become grounded in our day to day thoughts, conversations, and actions.
  • Words that create a false imagery of aging as being only fatalistic.
  • Words or phrases that convey that this is someone else’s problem.
  • Words that editorialize the actual data in a negative manner.
  • Words such as “elderly”, or “seniors”.
  • Phrases such as “silver tsunami”, “tidal wave of aged persons or seniors”

The next step is to change our vocabulary. Some specific recommendations that were made were to:

  1. Use neutral words such as older people, older adults, older Americans (when describing persons aged 65 years and older).
  2. Be inclusive using words such as “we and us.”
    • Avoid the use of words like “aged, elder, elderly, seniors as these often have specific connotations, individual biases and negative imagery.
      • I have often attempted in my clinical encounter notes to go as far as separating the concept of chronological and physiological age by stating: “This is a female of chronological age of 85 years who has no significant cognitive disturbances, a firm social support and has intact instrumental activities of daily living and activities of daily living who presents for further management of her (name disease here).” This goes even a step further and attempts to separate the preconceived imagery based on individual biases when just stating a chronological age.
  3. Use phrases such as: “Older adults are living longer and healthier lives”.
    • Avoid the use of phrases such as “tidal wave,” “tsunami,” and similar catastrophic terms for the growing population of older adults. These phrases serve only to detract from the message and don’t point to the specific facts needed to solve the problem.
  4. In research setting use statements such as: “Our study has demonstrated that older adults had a higher incidence of a certain disease” and “We hypothesize that this is perhaps due to inadequate access to key health resources”. Then suggest improvements that can be made to completely or partially offset the problem. Explain the rationale for the finding in a positivist attitude rather than avoiding it or referring to it in a fatalistic manner.

“Language Mattersis an excellent, timely, factual, editorial that I am sure the entire geriatric and geriatric cardiology community embrace. However, a more important goal should be to disseminate this topic to our non-geriatric inclined colleagues to change the current culture and proudly display the advances that have been made in healthcare and aging services.

For further information please read the entire article that is freely available at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jgs.14941

Other important resources in this area of appropriate language and older adults:
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/toolkits/aging/
http://asaging.org/blog/developing-research-agenda-combat-ageism

Reference:
Lundebjerg NE, Trucil DE, Hammond EC, Applegate WB. When It Comes to Older Adults, Language Matters: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Adopts Modified American Medical Association Style. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(7):1386-1388.

 

By: Ashok Krishnaswami, MD, MAS