Development of a tool for eliciting patient priority from among competing cardiovascular disease, medication-symptoms, and fall injury outcomes

Development of an Electronic Tool to Assess Patient Preferences in Geriatric Polypharmacy (PolyPref)

PURPOSE

Medical decision-making in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy should include the individual patient's treatment preferences. We developed and pilot-tested an electronic instrument (PolyPref) to elicit patient preferences in geriatric polypharmacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PolyPref follows a two-stage direct approach to preference assessment. Stage 1 generates an individual preselection of relevant health outcomes and medication regimen characteristics, followed by stage 2, in which their importance is assessed using the Q-sort methodology. The feasibility of the instrument was tested in adults aged ≥70 years with ≥2 chronic conditions and regular intake of ≥5 medicines. After the assessment with PolyPref, the patients rated the tool with regard to its comprehensibility and usability and assessed the accuracy of the personal result. Evaluators rated the patients' understanding of the task.

RESULTS

Eighteen short-term health outcomes, 3 long-term health outcomes, and 8 medication regimen characteristics were included in the instrument. The final population for the pilot study comprised 15 inpatients at a clinic for geriatric rehabilitation with a mean age of 80.6 (± 6.0) years, a median score of 28 (range 25-30) points on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and a mean of 11.6 (± 3.6) regularly taken medicines. Feedback by the patients and the evaluators revealed ratings in favor of understanding and comprehensibility of 86.7% to 100%. The majority of the patients stated that their final result summarized the most important aspects of their pharmacotherapy (93.3%) and that its ranking order reflected their personal opinion (100%). Preference assessment took an average of 35 (± 8.5) min, with the instrument being handled by the evaluator in 14 of the 15 participants.

CONCLUSION

Preference assessment with PolyPref was feasible in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy, offering a new strategy for the standardized evaluation of patient priorities in geriatric pharmacotherapy.

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.

Discussions about evidence and preferences in real-life general practice consultations with older patients

OBJECTIVES

To explore how decisions are made in real-life general practice consultations with older patients (65+ years), and examine how general practitioners (GPs) communicate risk and benefit information and evidence, and integrate patient preferences.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of 20 video-recorded consultations with older patients in Australian primary healthcare settings. Consultations were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method and quantitatively using the Observer OPTION⁵ scale and the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool.

RESULTS

Overall, Observer OPTION⁵ and ACEPP scores were low, with mean total scores of 11.3 (out of 100) and 10.4 (out of 40) respectively. Together with qualitative findings, these results suggest that shared decision-making did not occur, and that healthcare options (including anticipated benefits and risks), evidence and patient preferences were rarely discussed in our sample of consultations with older people. GPs often unilaterally made treatment decisions (usually pharmacotherapy) while patients reverted to a passive decision-making role.

CONCLUSION

We observed a lack of shared decision-making in our primary care study, with little engagement of older patients in decisions about their health.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Training and support tools may be needed to enhance the capacity and self-efficacy of providers and older patients to share healthcare decisions.

General Practitioners' Decision Making about Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Older Adults: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in older people is challenging as they are a diverse group with varying needs, frequent presence of comorbidities, and are more susceptible to treatment harms. Moreover the potential benefits and harms of preventive medication for older people are uncertain. We explored GPs' decision making about primary CVD prevention in patients aged 75 years and older.

METHOD

25 GPs participated in semi-structured interviews in New South Wales, Australia. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded and Framework Analysis was used.

RESULTS

Analysis identified factors that are likely to contribute to variation in the management of CVD risk in older people. Some GPs based CVD prevention on guidelines regardless of patient age. Others tailored management based on factors such as perceptions of prevention in older age, knowledge of limited evidence, comorbidities, polypharmacy, frailty, and life expectancy. GPs were more confident about: 1) medication and lifestyle change for fit/healthy older patients, and 2) stopping or avoiding medication for frail/nursing home patients. Decision making for older patients outside of these categories was less clear.

CONCLUSION

Older patients receive different care depending on their GP's perceptions of ageing and CVD prevention, and their knowledge of available evidence. GPs consider CVD prevention for older patients challenging and would welcome more guidance in this area.

Individualized Absolute Risk Calculations for Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions: Embracing Heterogeneity, Causality, and Competing Events

Approximately 75% of adults over the age of 65 years are affected by two or more chronic medical conditions. We provide a conceptual justification for individualized absolute risk calculators for competing patient-centered outcomes (PCO) (i.e. outcomes deemed important by patients) and patient reported outcomes (PRO) (i.e. outcomes patients report instead of physiologic test results). The absolute risk of an outcome is the probability that a person receiving a given treatment will experience that outcome within a pre-defined interval of time, during which they are simultaneously at risk for other competing outcomes. This allows for determination of the likelihood of a given outcome with and without a treatment. We posit that there are heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) largely depends on those coexisting conditions. We outline the development of an individualized absolute risk calculator for competing outcomes using propensity score methods that strengthen causal inference for specific treatments. Innovations include the key concept that any given outcome may or may not concur with any other outcome and that these competing outcomes do not necessarily preclude other outcomes. Patient characteristics and MCC will be the primary explanatory factors used in estimating the heterogeneity of treatment effects on PCO and PRO. This innovative method may have wide-spread application for determining individualized absolute risk calculations for competing outcomes. Knowing the probabilities of outcomes in absolute terms may help the burgeoning population of patients with MCC who face complex treatment decisions.

A decision-algorithm defining the rehabilitation approach: 'Facial oral tract therapy'

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe and define the rehabilitation approach: 'Facial Oral Tract Therapy' (F.O.T.T.).

METHOD

We defined the content and process of the rehabilitation approach (F.O.T.T.) in a decision-algorithm supported by a manual with supplementary material. The algorithm was developed by a research occupational therapist and an F.O.T.T. senior instructor. We used an inductive approach combining existing knowledge from: F.O.T.T. instructors, therapists trained in using the F.O.T.T. approach, and existing literature. A group of F.O.T.T. instructors and the originator of the treatment approach Mrs. Kay Coombes has given comments to and approved the algorithm.

RESULT

The algorithm consist of five flowcharts: 'one assessment' chart guiding the therapist in the examination of the patient and four 'treatment charts', one for each of the four areas of F.O.T.T.: swallowing and eating; oral hygiene; breathing, voice, and speech articulation; facial expression, giving guidance on interventions. The algorithm outlines all important components in the treatment that the therapist should decide to use or not to use in the intervention. The algorithm is supported by a manual with criteria of when to use which components.

CONCLUSION

This algorithm is designed to be a practical guideline to therapists using F.O.T.T. in clinical practice and in educational settings. The use of this algorithm may support standardization of F.O.T.T. and thereby promote and maintain the quality in the treatment. This in turn will facilitate research that addresses F.O.T.T. and outcomes.

Health outcome priorities among competing cardiovascular, fall injury, and medication-related symptom outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To determine the priority that older adults with coexisting hypertension and fall risk give to optimizing cardiovascular outcomes versus fall- and medication symptom-related outcomes.

DESIGN

Interview.

SETTING

Community.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty-three cognitively intact persons aged 70 and older with hypertension and fall risk.

MEASUREMENTS

Discrete choice task was used to elicit the relative importance placed on reducing the risk of three outcomes: cardiovascular events, serious fall injuries, and medication symptoms. Risk estimates with and without antihypertensive medications were obtained from the literature. Participants chose between 11 pairs of options that displayed lower risks for one or two outcomes and a higher risk for the other outcome(s), versus the reverse. Results were used to calculate relative importance scores for the three outcomes. These scores, which sum to 100, reflect the relative priority participants placed on the difference between the risk estimates of each outcome.

RESULTS

Sixty-two participants (50.4%) placed greater importance on reducing risk of cardiovascular events than reducing risk of the combination of fall injuries and medication symptoms; 61 participants did the converse. A lower percentage of participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P=.02), unsteadiness (P=.02), functional dependency (P=.04), lower cognition (P=.02) and depressive symptoms (P=.03) prioritized cardiovascular outcomes over fall injuries and medication symptoms than did participants without these characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Interindividual variability in the face of competing outcomes supports individualizing decision-making to individual priorities. In the current example, this may mean forgoing antihypertensive medications or compromising on blood pressure reduction for some individuals.