Eliciting Preferences of Multimorbid Elderly Adults in Family Practice Using an Outcome Prioritization Tool

Cross-sectional study assessing health outcome priorities of older adults with multimorbidity at a primary care setting in Singapore

OBJECTIVES

Managing older adults with multimorbidity may be challenging due to the conflicting benefits and harms of multiple treatments. Thus, it is important to identify patients' health outcome priorities to align treatment goals with their health preferences. This study aimed to use the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT) to describe the health outcome priorities of older adults with multimorbidity and determine the factors associated with these priorities. Additionally, it aimed to assess the ease of completing the OPT in Singapore's primary care population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study conducted from January to March 2022.

SETTING

A public primary care centre in Singapore.

PARTICIPANTS

65 years and older with multimorbidity.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the most important health outcome priorities on the OPT. Secondary outcome measures were factors affecting these priorities and ease of completing the OPT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 180 participants (mean age: 73.2±6.1 years). Slightly more than half (54.4%) prioritised 'staying alive', while the remainder (45.6%) prioritised 'maintaining independence' (25.6%), 'relieving pain' (10.6%) and 'relieving other symptoms' (9.4%). Participants with six or more chronic conditions were three times (OR 3.03 (95% CI1.09 to 8.42)) more likely to prioritise 'staying alive' compared with participants with three conditions. Most participants (69.4%) agreed that the OPT was easy to complete, and the mean time taken to complete the OPT was 3.8±1.6 minutes.

CONCLUSION

'Staying alive' was the most important health outcome priority, especially for older adults with six or more chronic conditions. The OPT was easily completed among older adults with multimorbidity in primary care. Further qualitative studies can be conducted to understand the factors influencing patients' priorities and explore the relevance of the OPT in guiding treatment decisions.

Geriatric assessment and treatment decision-making in surgical oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Present an approach for surgical decision-making in cancer that incorporates geriatric assessment by building upon the common categories of tumor, technical, and patient factors to enable dual assessment of disease and geriatric factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Conventional preoperative assessment is insufficient for older adults missing important modifiable deficits, and inaccurately estimating treatment intolerance, complications, functional impairment and disability, and death. Including geriatric-focused assessment into routine perioperative care facilitates improved communications between clinicians and patients and among interdisciplinary teams. In addition, it facilitates the detection of geriatric-specific deficits that are amenable to treatment. We propose a framework for embedding geriatric assessment into surgical oncology practice to allow more accurate risk stratification, identify and manage geriatric deficits, support decision-making, and plan proactively for both cancer-directed and non-cancer-directed therapies. This patient-centered approach can reduce adverse outcomes such as functional decline, delirium, prolonged hospitalization, discharge to long-term care, immediate postoperative complications, and death.

SUMMARY

Geriatric assessment and management has substantial benefits over conventional preoperative assessment alone. This article highlights these advantages and outlines a feasible strategy to incorporate both disease-based and geriatric-specific assessment and treatment when caring for older surgical patients with cancer.

Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis

BACKGROUND

In primary care, patients increasingly face difficult decisions related to complex care needs (multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health issues, social vulnerability and structural barriers). There is a need for a pragmatic conceptual model to understand decisional needs among patients with complex care needs and outcomes related to decision. We aimed to identify types of decisional needs among patients with complex care needs, and decision-making configurations of conditions associated with decision outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. Two specialized librarians searched five bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI). The search strategy was conducted from inception to December 2017. A team of twenty crowd-reviewers selected empirical studies on: (1) patients with complex care needs; (2) decisional needs; (3) primary care. Two reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We conducted a 2-phase case-based qualitative synthesis framed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and Gregor's explicative-predictive theory type. A decisional need case involved: (a) a decision (what), (b) concerning a patient with complex care needs with bio-psycho-social characteristics (who), (c) made independently or in partnership (how), (d) in a specific place and time (where/when), (e) with communication and coordination barriers or facilitators (why), and that (f) influenced actions taken, health or well-being, or decision quality (outcomes).

RESULTS

We included 47 studies. Data sufficiency qualitative criterion was reached. We identified 69 cases (2997 participants across 13 countries) grouped into five types of decisional needs: 'prioritization' (n = 26), 'use of services' (n = 22), 'prescription' (n = 12), 'behavior change' (n = 4) and 'institutionalization' (n = 5). Many decisions were made between clinical encounters in situations of social vulnerability. Patterns of conditions associated with decision outcomes revealed four decision-making configurations: 'well-managed' (n = 13), 'asymmetric encounters' (n = 21), 'self-management by default' (n = 8), and 'chaotic' (n = 27). Shared decision-making was associated with positive outcomes. Negative outcomes were associated with independent decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Our results could extend decision-making models in primary care settings and inform subsequent user-centered design of decision support tools for heterogenous patients with complex care needs.

Methods to elicit and evaluate the attainment of patient goals in older adults: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to identify patient goal elicitation and evaluation methods for older adults, and to investigate which methods can be used in medication optimization interventions for nursing home residents (NHRs).

METHODS

The Arksey and O'Malley framework guided the review. A search was launched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Reference selection and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers, followed by team discussions to solve discrepancies. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to synthesize the data. Included papers were reconsidered to identify methods for medication optimization interventions for NHRs.

RESULTS

Ninety-six references, encompassing 38 elicitation and 12 evaluation methods, were included. Elicitation methods differed in structure, content, and patient involvement levels. Qualitative and quantitative methods were found to assess goal attainment. Five elicitation and three evaluation methods were developed for NHRs, but none of these contained a medication-related assessment.

CONCLUSION

A variety of goal elicitation and evaluation methods for older adults was found, but none for medication optimization interventions in NHRs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A holistic approach seems important to integrate patient goals into medication optimization interventions, not limiting goal elicitation to a medication-related assessment. Also, the choice of assessor seems important to obtain patient goals.

Older Patients' Perceptions of Medicines and Willingness to Deprescribe

Introduction Major barriers in deprescribing are the ambivalence of patients, resistance to change, and poor acceptance of alternative treatments. Objective To investigate older patients' beliefs, understanding and knowledge, satisfaction with medicine use, health outcome priorities, their attitude toward deprescribing, and to identify associated patient factors. Methods This multi-center cross-sectional, semistructured survey study involved older outpatients (70 years of age and older) with polypharmacy. The survey comprised three validated questionnaires: Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire, and the Health Outcome Prioritization tool, with additional questions about understanding and satisfaction. The association between questionnaire outcomes and patient characteristics was investigated. Results Fifty participants were included; they used an average of 9 (+/- SD 2.7) medicines. For most participants (82%), the necessity of using medicines outweighed their concerns. Participants could name 35% of their medicines and 43% of the indications. Overall, 76% were satisfied with the effect of their medicines, but 94% would be willing to stop their medication if advised by their doctor. Maintaining independence (46%) and reducing pain (31%) were the most important health outcome priorities reported by the patients; staying alive had the lowest priority (51%). Participants with higher levels of educational attainment had better knowledge and had more concerns about harmful effects. Conclusions Patients are open to deprescribing but would probably not initiate the conversation themselves because they are generally very satisfied with their medicines. Knowledge about their medicines and their indications is poor. If doctors initiate deprescribing, patients are probably willing to follow their advice. Patients' life priorities should be discussed in deprescribing conversations.

How well do healthcare professionals know of the priorities of their older patients regarding treatment outcomes?

OBJECTIVES

For shared decision making, it is crucial to identify patients' priorities regarding health outcomes. Our aim was to study whether healthcare professionals know these priorities.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study we included older patients who had to make a treatment decision, their general practitioners (GPs) and their medical specialists. Agreement between the patients' main health outcome as prioritised by using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and the perception of the same outcome by their healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients were included. Median age was 76 years, 87.4% of patients presented with malignant disease. The majority prioritised maintaining independence (51.7%), followed by extending life (27.6%). The agreement between patients and healthcare professionals was low (GPs 41.7%, kappa 0.067, p = 0.39), medical specialists 40.3%, kappa 0.074, p = 0.33). Positively related to agreement was patient's age > 75, and a longer relation with their patients (for GPs), and the patient having no partner (for medical specialist). Having a malignant disease, dependent living and functional deficits were negatively related to agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals have poor perceptions of their patients' priorities.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To realise patient-centered care, it is crucial to discuss priorities explicitly with all patients.

Medication review and reconciliation in older adults

Older people are frequently exposed to polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, and adverse drug events. Two clinical processes can help geriatricians to optimize and increase the safety of drug prescriptions for older adults: medication reconciliation and medication review. Medication reconciliation provides the best possible medication history and identifies and resolves discrepancies in drug prescriptions. During the medication review, the best possible medication history is crosschecked against other data, including morbidities, patient's preferences, or geriatric syndromes, to produce a personalized medication strategy. Alignment of treatment recommendations with patient preferences and goals through shared decision-making is particularly important in medication review. Medication reconciliation and medication review have proven to be effective, but their broad implementation remains difficult. Indeed, these procedures are time-consuming and require specific skills, coordination between different healthcare professionals, organizations and dedicated means. The involvement of geriatricians therefore remains essential for the successful implementation of medication reconciliation and medication review in geriatric settings and among frail older people.

Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care

BACKGROUND

Older patients with cancer often find it difficult to take part in shared decision making.

AIM

To assess the utility of the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT), designed to aid discussion with a patient in regards to their treatment goals, to empower patients with cancer through structured conversations about generic treatment goals with GPs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A randomised controlled trial of 114 Dutch participants recruited between November 2015 and January 2019, aged ≥60 years with non-curable cancer who had to make a treatment decision with an oncologist. The intervention group used the OPT while the control group received care as usual.

METHOD

The primary outcome was patient empowerment using the score on the decision self-efficacy (DSE) scale. Secondary outcomes were symptoms measures of fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The experiences of participants were also explored.

RESULTS

No effect was found on patient empowerment between the OPT group (n = 48; DSE 86.8; standard deviation [SD] = 18.2) and the control group (n = 58; DSE 84.2; SD = 17.6; P = 0.47). In the OPT group, although statistically non-significant, fewer patients had low empowerment (18.8%, n = 9 versus 24.1%, n = 14; P = 0.50), but they did have statistically significant lower mean anxiety scores (6.0, SD = 4.6 versus 7.6, SD = 4.4; P<0.05) and less mild fatigue (58.8%, n = 30 versus 77.2%, n = 44; P = 0.05). Overall, 44.8% (n = 13) of patients indicated that the OPT-facilitated conversation helped them make a treatment decision, and 31.1% (n = 14) of the GPs reported that they gained new insights from the conversation.

CONCLUSION

An OPT-facilitated conversation about generic treatment goals between patients and their GPs is associated with less anxiety and fatigue, but did not show statistically significant improvements in patient empowerment. Adding the OPT to routine care might ensure more patient-tailored care.

What matters to me - a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in long-term care: a user-centred design

Background

During the process of decision-making for long-term care, clients are often dependent on informal support and available information about quality ratings of care services. However, clients do not take ratings into account when considering preferred care, and need assistance to understand their preferences. A tool to elicit preferences for long-term care could be beneficial. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative descriptive study is to understand the user requirements and develop a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in need of long-term care.

Methods

We applied a user-centred design in which end-users influence the development of the tool. The included end-users were clients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018 by means of meetings with the development team consisting of four users, walkthrough interviews with 21 individual users, video-audio recordings, field notes, and observations during the use of the tool. Data were collected during three phases of iteration: Look and feel, Navigation, and Content. A deductive and inductive content analysis approach was used for data analysis.

Results

The layout was considered accessible and easy during the Look and feel phase, and users asked for neutral images. Users found navigation easy, and expressed the need for concise and shorter text blocks. Users reached consensus about the categories of preferences, wished to adjust the content with propositions about well-being, and discussed linguistic difficulties.

Conclusion

By incorporating the requirements of end-users, the user-centred design proved to be useful in progressing from the prototype to the finalized tool ‘What matters to me’. This tool may assist the elicitation of client’s preferences in their search for long-term care.

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Priorities of patients with multimorbidity and of clinicians regarding treatment and health outcomes: a systematic mixed studies review

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies that have investigated the health outcome and treatment priorities of patients with multimorbidity, clinicians or both, in order to assess whether the priorities of the two groups are in alignment, or whether a disparity exists between the priorities of patients with multimorbidity and clinicians.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane databases from inception to May 2019 using a predefined search strategy, as well as reference lists containing any relevant articles, as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane guidelines.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies reporting health outcome and treatment priorities of adult patients with multimorbidity, defined as suffering from two or more chronic conditions, or of clinicians in the context of multimorbidity or both. There was no restriction by study design, and studies using quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used a narrative synthesis approach to synthesise the quantitative findings, and a meta-ethnography approach to synthesise the qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 studies for inclusion, which comprised 12 quantitative studies, 10 qualitative studies and 2 mixed-methods studies. Twelve studies reported the priorities of both patients and clinicians, 10 studies reported the priorities of patients and 2 studies reported the priorities of clinicians alone. Our findings have shown a mostly low level of agreement between the priorities of patients with multimorbidity and clinicians. We found that prioritisation by patients was mainly driven by their illness experiences, while clinicians focused on longer-term risks. Preserving functional ability emerged as a key priority for patients from across our quantitative and qualitative analyses.

CONCLUSION

Recognising that there may be a disparity in prioritisation and understanding the reasons for why this might occur, can facilitate clinicians in accurately eliciting the priorities that are most important to their patients and delivering patient-centred care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018076076.

How older patients prioritise their multiple health problems: a qualitative study

Background

Patients with multimorbidity often receive diverse treatments; they are subjected to polypharmacy and to a high treatment burden. Hence it is advocated that doctors set individual health and treatment priorities with their patients. In order to apply such a concept, doctors will need a good understanding of what causes patients to prioritise some of their problems over others. This qualitative study explores what underlying reasons patients have when they appraise their health problems as more or less important.

Methods

We undertook semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 34 patients (aged 70 years and over) in German general practices. Initially, patients received a comprehensive geriatric assessment, on the basis of which they rated the importance of their uncovered health problems. Subsequently, they were interviewed as to why they considered some of their problems important and others not. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Patients considered their health problems important, if they were severe, constant, uncontrolled, risky or if they restricted daily activities, autonomy and social inclusion. Important problems often correlated with negative feelings. Patients considered problems unimportant, if they were related to a bearable degree of suffering, less restrictions in activities, or psychological adjustment to diseases. Altogether different reasons occurred on the subject of preventive health issues.

Conclusions

Patients assess health problems as important if they interfere with what they want from life (life values and goals). Psychological adjustment, by contrast, facilitates a downgrading of the importance. Asking patients with multimorbidity, which health problems are important, may guide physicians to treatment priorities and health problems in need of empowerment.

Health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: an evidence map

OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify knowledge clusters and research gaps in the health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity by mapping current evidence.

DESIGN

Evidence map (systematic review variant).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL and Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index/-Expanded from inception to April 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting primary research on health-related preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic/acute conditions).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered the studies using MAXQDA-18 content analysis software.

RESULTS

The 152 included studies (62% from North America, 28% from Europe) comprised 57 093 patients overall (range 9-9105). All used an observational design except for one interventional study: 63 (41%) were qualitative (59 cross-sectional, 4 longitudinal), 85 (57%) quantitative (63 cross-sectional, 22 longitudinal) and 3 (2%) used mixed methods. The setting was specialised care in 85 (56%) and primary care in 54 (36%) studies. We identified seven clusters of studies on preferences: end-of-life care (n=51, 34%), self-management (n=34, 22%), treatment (n=32, 21%), involvement in shared decision making (n=25, 17%), health outcome prioritisation/goal setting (n=19, 13%), healthcare service (n=12, 8%) and screening/diagnostic testing (n=1, 1%). Terminology (eg, preferences, views and perspectives) and concepts (eg, trade-offs, decision regret, goal setting) used to describe health-related preferences varied substantially between studies.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides the first evidence map on the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity. Included studies were mostly conducted in developed countries and covered a broad range of issues. Evidence on patient preferences concerning decision-making on screening and diagnostic testing was scarce. Differences in employed terminology, decision-making components and concepts, as well as the sparsity of intervention studies, are challenges for future research into evidence-based decision support seeking to elicit the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity and help them construct preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework (OSF): DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MCRWQ.

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision-making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; this is particularly the case for older people with complex needs.

Objectives

To provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs and how they might be applied to integrated care models.

Design

Realist synthesis following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards.

Participants

Twenty-four stakeholders took part in interviews.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Lateral searches were also carried out. All types of evidence were included.

Review methods

Iterative stakeholder-driven, three-stage approach, involving (1) scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, (2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories and (3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11).

Results

We included 88 papers, of which 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four theories (context–mechanism–outcome configurations) that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care; organising systems to support and prioritise SDM; supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM; and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that create trust between those involved, allow service users to feel that they are respected and understood, and engender confidence to engage in SDM.

Limitations

There is a lack of evidence on interventions to promote SDM in older people with complex needs or on interprofessional approaches to SDM.

Conclusions

Models of SDM for older people with complex health and care needs should be conceptualised as a series of conversations that patients, and their family carers, may have with a variety of different health and care professionals. To embed SDM in practice requires a shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers are likely to need support, both in terms of the way services are organised and delivered and in terms of their own continuing professional development. Older people with complex needs may need support to engage in SDM. How this support is best provided needs further exploration, although face-to-face interactions and ongoing patient–professional relationships are key.

Future work

There is a need for further work to establish how organisational structures can be better aligned to meet the requirements of older people with complex needs. This includes a need to define and evaluate the contribution that different members of health and care teams can make to SDM for older people with complex health and care needs.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039013.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models.

METHODS

Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included.

RESULTS

We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

Update in geriatrics: What geriatric oncology can learn from general geriatric research

Life expectancy has been steadily increasing for decades and this trend is likely to continue in coming years. In fact, there is more than a 50% probability that by 2030 female life expectancy could break the 90 year barrier, with more than half of the expected gains due to enhanced longevity above the age of 65 years. The resultant aging of societies means that health care will be faced with a rising number of increasingly older patients, who are also likely to have higher levels of multimorbidity. Most issues regarding assessment, prognostication and, management of older patients are not unique to geriatric oncology and thus there is opportunity to learn from progress in other fields. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on research, reviews, and debate in general geriatrics that may be relevant to clinicians and researchers active in geriatric oncology. The selection of topics was based on a general search of the table of contents of widely read geriatrics and internal medicine journals, and includes geriatric co-management, improving research for older patients, caregiver issues, eliciting patient preferences, and shared-decision making.

Exploring residual risk for diabetes and microvascular disease in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS)

AIM

Approximately half of the participants in the Diabetes Prevention Outcomes Study (DPPOS) had diabetes after 15 years of follow-up, whereas nearly all the others remained with pre-diabetes. We examined whether formerly unexplored factors in the DPPOS coexisted with known risk factors that posed additional risk for, or protection from, diabetes as well as microvascular disease.

METHODS

Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine predictors of diabetes. Sequential modelling procedures considered known and formerly unexplored factors. We also constructed models to determine whether the same unexplored factors that associated with progression to diabetes also predicted the prevalence of microvascular disease. Hazard ratios (HR) are per standard deviation change in the variable.

RESULTS

In models adjusted for demographics and known diabetes risk factors, two formerly unknown factors were associated with risk for both diabetes and microvascular disease: number of medications taken (HR = 1.07, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.03 to 1.12 for diabetes; odds ratio (OR) = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.16 for microvascular disease) and variability in HbA_1c (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 for diabetes; OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09 for microvascular disease per sd). Total comorbidities increased risk for diabetes (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.16), whereas higher systolic (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) and diastolic (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22) blood pressure, as well as the use of anti-hypertensives (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.62), increased risk of microvascular disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Several formerly unexplored factors in the DPPOS predicted additional risk for diabetes and/or microvascular disease - particularly hypertension and the use of anti-hypertensive medications - helping to explain some of the residual disease risk in participants of the DPPOS.

Outcome prioritisation tool for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity: a pilot study in general practice

Background

Several methods have been developed to conduct and support medication reviews in older persons with multimorbidity. Assessing the patient’s priorities for achieving specific health outcomes can guide the medication review process. Little is known about the impact of conducting such assessments.

Aim

This pilot study aimed to determine proposed and observed medication changes when using an outcome prioritisation tool (OPT) during a medication review in general practice.

Design and setting

Participants were older patients with multimorbidity (aged ≥69 years) with polypharmacy (five or more chronic medications) from the practices of 14 GPs.

Method

Patients were asked to prioritise four universal health outcomes — remaining alive, maintaining independence, reducing pain, and reducing other symptoms — using an OPT. GPs used this prioritisation to review the medication and to propose and discuss medication changes with the patient. The outcomes included the proposed medication change as documented by the GP, and the observed medication change in the electronic health record at follow-up. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine medication changes according to the prioritised health outcomes.

Results

A total of 59 patients using 486 medications prioritised the four health outcomes. GPs proposed 34 changes of medication, mainly stopping, for 20 patients. At follow-up, 14 medication changes were observed for 10 patients. The stopping of medication (mostly preventive) was particularly observed in patients who prioritised ‘reducing other symptoms’ as most important.

Conclusion

Using an OPT leads mainly to the stopping of medication. Medication changes appeared to be easiest for patients who prioritised ‘reducing other symptoms’ as most important.