Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundMortality prediction models are useful to guide clinical decision-making based on prognosis. The frailty index, which allows prognostication and personalized care planning, has not been directly compared with validated prognostic models.ObjectiveTo compare the discrimination of mortality, disability, falls, and hospitalization between a frailty index and validated prognostic indices.DesignSecondary Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study.ParticipantsSeven thousand thirty-three Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older.MeasurementsWe measured a deficit-accumulation frailty index, Schonberg index, and Lee index at the 2011 baseline assessment. Primary outcome was mortality at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were decline in activities of daily living (ADL), decline in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), fall, and hospitalization at 1 year. We used C-statistics to compare discrimination between indices, adjusting for age and sex.ResultsThe study population included 4146 (44.8%) with age ≥ 75 years, with a median frailty index of 0.15 (interquartile range 0.09–0.25). A total of 1385 participants died (14.7%) and 2386 (35.2%) were lost to follow-up. Frailty, Schonberg, and Lee indices predicted mortality similarly: C-statistics (95% confidence interval) were 0.78 (0.77–0.80) for frailty index; 0.79 (0.78–0.81) for Schonberg index; and 0.78 (0.77–0.80) for Lee index. The frailty index had higher C-statistics for decline in ADL function (frailty index, 0.80 [0.78–0.83]; Schonberg, 0.74 [0.72–0.76]; Lee, 0.74 [0.71–0.77]) and falls (frailty index, 0.66 [0.65–0.68]; Schonberg, 0.61 [0.58–0.63]; Lee, 0.61 [0.59–0.63]). C-statistics were similar for decline in IADL function (frailty index, 0.61 [0.59–0.63]; Schonberg, 0.60 [0.59–0.62]; Lee, 0.60 [0.58–0.62]) and hospitalizations (frailty index, 0.68 [0.66–0.70]; Schonberg, 0.68 [0.66–0.69]; Lee, 0.65 [0.63–0.67]).ConclusionsA deficit-accumulation frailty index performs as well as prognostic indices for mortality prediction, and better predicts ADL disability and falls in community-dwelling older adults. Frailty assessment offers a unifying approach to risk stratification for key health outcomes relevant to older adults.

Advanced dementia is a leading cause of death in the United States. Treatment decisions should be guided by the goals of care; comfort is usually the primary goal, and tube feeding is not recommended. Foreword This Journal feature begins with a case vignette highlighting a common clinical problem. Evidence supporting various strategies is then presented, followed by a review of formal guidelines, when they exist. The article ends with the author’s clinical recommendations. Stage An 89-year-old male nursing home resident with a 10-year history of Alzheimer’s disease presents with a temperature of 38.3°C, a productive cough, and a respiratory rate of 28 breaths per minute. Nurses report that for the past 6 months he has been coughing at breakfast and having trouble swallowing. He has profound memory deficits, no longer recognizes his daughter (who is his health care proxy), is bedbound, is able to mumble a couple of words, and is unable to perform any activities of daily living. The nurse asks whether he should be hospitalized. How should this patient be evaluated . . .

Background Pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (PCTs) test the effectiveness of interventions implemented in routine clinical practice. Because PCT findings are generalizable, this approach is gaining momentum among interventionists and funding agencies seeking to accelerate the testing and adoption of evidence-based strategies to improve care and outcomes. Particular attention is being paid to non-pharmacological interventions, which are often complex and may be difficult to uniformly implement across multiple sites. While many such non-pharmacological interventions have proven efficacious in small trials, most have not been widely adopted. PCTs could accelerate effectiveness testing and adoption, yet there are no established criteria to identify interventions ready for testing in a PCT. Methods We convened 30 interventionists and healthcare leaders to identify criteria to assess the readiness of non-pharmacological interventions for PCTs. Based on this discussion, we created a model with multiple domains, qualitative scoring guidelines for each domain, and a graphical summary of readiness assessments. All workshop participants had an opportunity to review and comment on the resulting model; three piloted it with their own interventions. Several other experts also provided input. Results The Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials (RAPT) model enables interventionists to assess an intervention’s readiness for PCTs. RAPT includes nine domains: implementation protocol, evidence, risk, feasibility, measurement, cost, acceptability, alignment, and impact. Domains reflect a range of considerations regarding the feasibility of successfully employing PCT methods and the prospect of an intervention’s widespread adoption, if proven effective. Individuals evaluating an intervention are asked to qualitatively assess each domain from low to high readiness. In this report, we provide assessment guidelines and examples of scored interventions. Conclusions RAPT is the first model to help interventionists and funders assess the extent to which interventions are ready for PCTs. Scoring efficacious interventions using RAPT can inform research team discussions regarding whether or not to advance an intervention to effectiveness testing using a PCT and how to design that PCT.

Background The Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) is one of the first large pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to be conducted in U.S. nursing homes ( N  = 119 intervention and N  = 241 control across two health-care systems). The trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a suite of videos to improve advance care planning (ACP) for nursing home patients. This report uses mixed methods to explore the optimal and suboptimal conditions necessary for implementation fidelity within pRCTs in nursing homes. Methods PROVEN’s protocol required designated facility champions to offer an ACP video to long-stay patients every 6 months during the 18-month implementation period. Champions completed a video status report, stored within electronic medical records, each time a video was offered. Data from the report were used to derive each facility’s adherence rate (i.e., cumulative video offer). Qualitative interviews held after 15 months with champions were purposively sampled from facilities within the highest and lowest adherence rates (i.e., those in the top and bottom quintiles). Two researchers analyzed interview data thematically using a deductive approach based upon six domains of the revised Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF). Matrices were developed to compare coded narratives by domain across facility adherence status. Results In total, 28 interviews involving 33 champions were analyzed. Different patterns were observed across high- versus low-adherence facilities for five CFIF domains. In low-adherence nursing homes, (1) there were limited implementation resources (Context), (2) there was often a perceived negative patient or family responsiveness to the program (Participant Responsiveness), and (3) champions were reticent in offering the videos (Recruitment). In high-adherence nursing homes, (1) there was more perceived patient and family willingness to engage in the program (Participant Responsiveness), (2) champions supplemented the video with ACP conversations (Quality of Delivery), (3) there were strategic approaches to recruitment (Recruitment), and (4) champions appreciated external facilitation (Strategies to Facilitate Implementation). Conclusions Critical lessons for implementing pRCTs in nursing homes emerged from this report: (1) flexible fidelity is important (i.e., delivering core elements of an intervention while permitting the adaptation of non-core elements), (2) reciprocal facilitation is vital (i.e., early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in research design and, reciprocally, researchers’ and organizational leaders’ ongoing support of the implementation), and (3) organizational and champion readiness should be formally assessed early and throughout implementation to facilitate remediation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612688 . Registered on 19 November 2015.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and intubation are a core part of advance care planning, particularly for seriously ill hospitalized patients. However, these discussions are often avoided. OBJECTIVES We aimed to examine the impact of a video decision tool for CPR and intubation on patients’ choices, knowledge, medical orders, and discussions with providers. DESIGN This was a prospective randomized trial conducted between 9 March 2011 and 1 June 2013 on the internal medicine services at two hospitals in Boston. PARTICIPANTS One hundred and fifty seriously ill hospitalized patients over the age of 60 with an advanced illness and a prognosis of 1 year or less were included. Mean age was 76 and 51 % were women. INTERVENTION Three-minute video describing CPR and intubation plus verbal communication of participants’ preferences to their physicians (intervention) ( N  = 75) or control arm (usual care) ( N  = 75). MAIN MEASURES The primary outcome was participants’ preferences for CPR and intubation (immediately after viewing the video in the intervention arm). Secondary outcomes included: orders to withhold CPR/intubation, documented discussions with providers during hospitalization, and participants’ knowledge of CPR/ intubation (five-item test, range 0–5, higher scores indicate greater knowledge). RESULTS Intervention participants (vs. controls) were more likely not to want CPR (64 % vs. 32 %, p <0.0001) and intubation (72 % vs. 43 %, p  < 0.0001). Intervention participants (vs. controls) were also more likely to have orders to withhold CPR (57 % vs. 19 %, p  < 0.0001) and intubation (64 % vs.19 %, p  < 0.0001) by hospital discharge, documented discussions about their preferences (81 % vs. 43 %, p  < 0.0001), and higher mean knowledge scores (4.11 vs. 2.45; p  < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Seriously ill patients who viewed a video about CPR and intubation were more likely not to want these treatments, be better informed about their options, have orders to forgo CPR/ intubation, and discuss preferences with providers. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01325519 Registry Name: A prospective randomized trial using video images in advance care planning in seriously ill hospitalized patients.

To document the extent and appropriateness of use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines among nursing home residents using a nationally representative survey. Cross-sectional analysis of the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined relationships between resident and facility characteristics and antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use by appropriateness classification among residents aged 60 years and older (N = 12,090). Resident diagnoses and information about behavioral problems were used to categorize antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use as appropriate, potentially appropriate, or having no appropriate indication. More than one quarter (26%) of nursing home residents used an antipsychotic medication, 40% of whom had no appropriate indication for such use. Among the 13% of residents who took benzodiazepines, 42% had no appropriate indication. In adjusted analyses, the odds of residents taking an antipsychotic without an appropriate indication were highest for residents with diagnoses of depression (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12–1.53), dementia (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.52–2.18), and with behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.56–2.50). The odds of potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use increased as the percentage of Medicaid residents in a facility increased (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02–1.15) and decreased as the percentage of Medicare residents increased (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25–0.83). The odds of taking a benzodiazepine without an appropriate indication were highest among residents who were female (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18–1.75), white (OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.47–2.60), and had behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.69; 95% CI: 1.41–2.01). Antipsychotics and benzodiazepines seem to be commonly prescribed to residents lacking an appropriate indication for their use.

Background The PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes (PROVEN) aims to test the effectiveness of an advance care planning (ACP) video intervention. Relatively little is known about the challenges associated with implementing ACP interventions in the nursing home (NH) setting, especially within a pragmatic trial. To address this research gap, this report sought to identify facilitators of and barriers to implementing PROVEN from the perspective of the Champions charged with introducing the ACP video program delivery to patients and families. Methods In semi-structured telephone interviews at 4 and 15 months of the 18-month implementation period, ACP Champions at all PROVEN intervention facilities ( N  = 119) were asked about their perceptions of program implementation. Forty interviews were purposively sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid deductive/inductive approach to thematic analysis incorporating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research’s domains: Intervention Characteristics (IC), Inner Setting (IS), Characteristics of Individuals (CI), Outer Setting (OS), and Process (P). Results Implementation facilitators identified by Champions included: the intervention’s adaptable mode of presentation and minimal time burden (IC) as well as the program’s customizable delivery to patients and families and opportunity for group reflection on implementation among ACP Champions (P). Barriers included mandated protocol-driven aspects of the program (OS), limited time to deliver the intervention (IS), and lack of perceived relevance and emotional readiness for ACP amongst stakeholders (CI). Conclusions Despite the promise of PROVEN’s intervention for improving ACP in nursing homes, unchangeable setting and characteristics of Champions, patients, and family members presented implementation barriers. Researchers need to engage all program participants (i.e., facility staff, patients, and families), in addition to corporate-level stakeholders, in early pragmatic trial design to minimize such obstacles. Further, despite the facilitating nature of PROVEN’s implementation processes, the study encountered tension between scientific rigor and real-world demands. Researchers need to optimize the real-world authenticity of pragmatic trial design while avoiding excessive implementation protocol deviations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02612688 . Registered 19 November 2015.

Background Though work has been done studying nursing home (NH) residents with either advanced Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or Alzheimer’s disease related dementia (ADRD), none have distinguished between them; even though their clinical features affecting survival are different. In this study, we compared mortality risk factors and survival between NH residents with advanced AD and those with advanced ADRD. Methods This is a retrospective observational study, in which we examined a sample of 34,493 U.S. NH residents aged 65 and over in the Minimum Data Set (2011–2013). Incident assessment of advanced disease was defined as the first MDS assessment with severe cognitive impairment (Cognitive Functional Score equals to 4) and diagnoses of AD or ADRD. Demographics, functional limitations, and comorbidities were evaluated as mortality risk factors using Cox models. Survival was characterized with Kaplan-Maier functions. Results Of those with advanced cognitive impairment, 35 % had AD and 65 % ADRD. At the incident assessment of advanced disease, those with AD had better health compared to those with ADRD. Mortality risk factors were similar between groups (shortness of breath, difficulties eating, substantial weight-loss, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia; all p  < 0.01). However, stroke and difficulty with transfer (for women) were significant mortality risk factors only for those with advanced AD. Urinary tract infection, and hypertension (for women) only were mortality risk factors for those with advanced ADRD. Median survival was significantly shorter for the advanced ADRD group (194 days) compared to the advanced AD group (300 days). Conclusions There were distinct mortality and survival patterns of NH residents with advanced AD and ADRD. This may help with care planning decisions regarding therapeutic and palliative care.

Background The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effect of an Advance Care Planning (ACP) Video Program on documented Do-Not-Hospitalize (DNH) orders among nursing home (NH) residents with advanced illness. Methods Secondary analysis on a subset of NHs enrolled in a cluster-randomized controlled trial (41 NHs in treatment arm implemented the ACP Video Program: 69 NHs in control arm employed usual ACP practices). Participants included long (> 100 days) and short (≤ 100 days) stay residents with advanced illness (advanced dementia or cardiopulmonary disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure)) in NHs from March 1, 2016 to May 31, 2018 without a documented Do-Not-Hospitalize (DNH) order at baseline. Logistic regression with covariate adjustments was used to estimate the impact of the resident being in a treatment versus control NH on: the proportion of residents with new DNH orders during follow-up; and the proportion of residents with any hospitalization during follow-up. Clustering at the facility-level was addressed using hierarchical models. Results The cohort included 6,117 residents with advanced illness (mean age (SD) = 82.8 (8.4) years, 65% female). Among long-stay residents ( n  = 3,902), 9.3% (SE, 2.2; 95% CI 5.0–13.6) and 4.2% (SE, 1.1; 95% CI 2.1–6.3) acquired a new DNH order in the treatment and control arms, respectively (average marginal effect, (AME) 5.0; SE, 2.4; 95% CI, 0.3–9.8). Among short-stay residents with advanced illness ( n  = 2,215), 8.0% (SE, 1.6; 95% CI 4.6–11.3) and 3.5% (SE 1.0; 95% CI 1.5–5.5) acquired a new DNH order in the treatment and control arms, respectively (AME 4.4; SE, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.5–8.3). Proportion of residents with any hospitalizations did not differ between arms in either cohort. Conclusions Compared to usual care, an ACP Video Program intervention increased documented DNH orders among NH residents with advanced disease but did not significantly reduce hospitalizations. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02612688 .