Search

Objectives: To develop a simple method for identifying community-dwelling vulnerable older people, defined as persons age 65 and older at increased risk of death or functional decline. To assess whether self-reported diagnoses and conditions add predictive ability to a function-based survey., Design: Analysis of longitudinal survey data., Setting: A nationally representative community-based survey., Participants: Six thousand two hundred five Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older., Measurements: Bivariate and multivariate analyses of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey; development and comparison of scoring systems that use age, function, and self-reported diagnoses to predict future death and functional decline., Results: A multivariate model using function, self-rated health, and age to predict death or functional decline was only slightly improved when self-reported diagnoses and conditions were included as predictors and was significantly better than a model using age plus self-reported diagnoses alone. These analyses provide the basis for a 13-item function-based scoring system that considers age, self-rated health, limitation in physical function, and functional disabilities. A score of >or=3 targeted 32% of this nationally representative sample as vulnerable. This targeted group had 4.2 times the risk of death or functional decline over a 2-year period compared with those with scores <3. The receiver operating characteristics curve had an area of.78. An alternative scoring system that included self-reported diagnoses did not substantially improve predictive ability when compared with a function-based scoring system., Conclusions: A function-based targeting system effectively and efficiently identifies older people at risk of functional decline and death. Self-reported diagnoses and conditions, when added to the system, do not enhance predictive ability. The function-based targeting system relies on self-report and is easily transported across care settings.

Background: Despite concern about the high costs and the uncertain benefit of prolonged treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU), there has been little research examining decision-making and outcomes for patients with prolonged ICU stays., Objectives: To evaluate decision-making and outcomes for seriously ill patients with an ICU stay of at least 14 days., Design: A prospective cohort study., Setting: Five teaching hospitals., Participants: Seriously ill patients enrolled in the Study To Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatments (SUPPORT)., Measurement: Patients, their surrogate decision-makers, and their physicians were interviewed about prognosis, communication, and goals of medical care. Based on age, diagnoses, comorbid illnesses, and acute physiology data, the SUPPORT Prognostic Model provided estimates of 6-month survival on study days 1, 3, 7, and 14. Hospital costs were estimated from hospital billing data., Results: Of the 9105 patients enrolled in SUPPORT, 1494 (16%) had ICU stays of 14 days or longer. The median length of stay in an ICU was 4 days for the entire SUPPORT cohort and 35 days for patients who were treated in an ICU for 14 days or longer. Median hospital costs were $76,501 for patients who had ICU stays 14 days or longer and $10,916 for patients who did not have long ICU stays. Fifty-five percent of patients with long ICU stays had died by 6 months, and an additional 19% had substantial functional impairment. Among patients with ICU stays of at least 14 days, only 20% had estimates of 6-month survival that fell below 10% at any time during their hospitalization. For patients with long ICU stays, the mean predicted probability of 6-month survival was 0.46 on study Day 3 and 0.47 on study Day 14. Fewer than 40% of patients (or their surrogates) reported that their physicians had talked with them about their prognoses or preferences for life-sustaining treatment. Among the patients who preferred a palliative approach to care, only 29% thought that their care was consistent with that aim. Those who discussed their preferences for care with a physician were 1.9 times more likely to believe that treatment was in accord with their preferences for palliation (95% CI, 1.4-2.5), Conclusions: Prolonged ICU stays were expensive and were often followed by death or disability. Patients reported low rates of discussions with their physicians about their prognoses and preferences for life-sustaining treatments. Many preferred that care focus on palliation and believed that care was inconsistent with their preferences. Patients were more likely to receive care consistent with their preferences if they had discussed their care preferences with their physicians.

Objective: To develop and validate a model estimating the survival time of hospitalized persons aged 80 years and older., Design: A prospective cohort study with mortality follow-up using the National Death Index., Setting: Four teaching hospitals in the US., Participants: Hospitalized patients enrolled between January 1993 and November 1994 in the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP). Patients were excluded if their length of hospital stay was 48 hours or less or if admitted electively for planned surgery., Measurements: A log-normal model of survival time up to 711 days was developed with the following variables: patient demographics, disease category, nursing home residence, severity of physiologic imbalance, chart documentation of weight loss, current quality of life, exercise capacity, and functional status. We assessed whether model accuracy could be improved by including symptoms of depression or history of recent fall, serum albumin, physician's subjective estimate of prognosis, and physician and patient preferences for general approach to care., Results: A total of 1266 patients were enrolled over a 10-month period, (median age 84.9, 61% female, 68% with one or more dependency), and 505 (40%) died during an average follow-up of more than 2 years. Important prognostic factors included the Acute Physiology Score of APACHE III collected on the third hospital day, modified Glasgow coma score, major diagnosis (ICU categories together, congestive heart failure, cancer, orthopedic, and all other), age, activities of daily living, exercise capacity, chart documentation of weight loss, and global quality of life. The Somers' Dxy for a model including these factors was 0.48 (equivalent to a receiver-operator curve (ROC) area of 0.74, suggesting good discrimination). Bootstrap estimation indicated good model validation (corrected Dxy of 0.46, ROC of 0.73). A nomogram based on this log-normal model is presented to facilitate calculation of median survival time and 10th and 90th percentile of survival time. A count of geriatric syndromes or comorbidities did not add explanatory power to the model, nor did the hospital of patient recruitment, depression, or the patient preferences for general approach to care. The physician's perception of the patient's preferences and the physician's subjective estimate of the patient's prognosis improved the estimate of survival time significantly., Conclusions: Accurate estimation of length of life for older hospitalized persons may be calculated using a limited amount of clinical information available from the medical chart plus a brief interview with the patient or surrogate. The accuracy of this model can be improved by including measures of the physician's perception of the patient's preferences for care and the physician's subjective estimate of prognosis.

Objective: To examine factors associated with family satisfaction with end-of-life care in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)., Design: A prospective cohort study with patients randomized to either usual care or an intervention that included clinical nurse specialists to assist in symptom control and facilitation of communication and decision-making., Setting: Five teaching hospitals in the United States., Participants: Family members and other surrogate respondents for 767 seriously ill hospitalized adults who died., Measurements: Eight questionnaire items regarding satisfaction with the patient's medical care expressed as two scores, one measuring satisfaction with patient comfort and the other measuring satisfaction with communication and decision-making., Results: Sixteen percent of respondents reported dissatisfaction with patient comfort and 30% reported dissatisfaction with communication and decision-making. Factors found to be significantly associated with satisfaction with communication and decision-making were hospital site, whether death occurred during the index hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.2, 95% CI, 1.3-3.9), and for patients who died following discharge, whether the patient received the SUPPORT intervention (AOR 2.0, 1.2-3.2). For satisfaction with comfort, male surrogates reported less satisfaction (0.6, 0.4-1.0), surrogates who reported patients' preferences were followed moderately to not at all had less satisfaction (0.2, 0.1-0.4), and surrogates who reported the patient's illness had greater effect on family finances had less satisfaction (0.4, 0.2-0.8)., Conclusions: Satisfaction scores suggest the need for improvement in end-of-life care, especially in communication and decision making. Further research is needed to understand how factors affect satisfaction with end-of-life care. An intervention like that used in SUPPORT may help family members.

Objective: To develop a model estimating the probability of a patient aged 80 years or older having functional limitations 2 months and 12 months after being hospitalized., Design: A prospective cohort study., Setting: Four teaching hospitals in the US., Participants: Enrolled patients were nonelective hospital admissions aged 80 years or older who stayed in hospital at least 48 hours. The 804 patients who survived and completed an interview at 2 months and the 450 who completed an interview at 12 months were from the 1266 patients in the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP) (76% and 47% of survivors, respectively). Median age of the 2-month survivors was 84.7 years., Measurements and Main Outcomes: Patient function 2 and 12 months after enrollment was defined by the number of dependencies in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to predict functional status. Predictors included demographic characteristics, disease category, geriatric conditions, severity of physiologic imbalance, current quality of life, and exercise capacity and ADLs 2 weeks before study admission., Results: Before admission, 39% of patients were functionally independent in ADLs. Of patients who survived and were interviewed at 2 months, 32% were functionally independent, and at 12 months, 36% were independent. Among patients with no baseline dependencies, 42% had developed one or more limitations 2 months later, and 41 % had limitations 12 months later. The patient's ability to perform activities of daily living at baseline was the most important predictor of functional status at both 2 and 12 months. In a multivariable predictive model, independent predictors of poorer functional status at 2 months included: worse baseline functional status and quality of life; depth of coma, if any; lower serum albumin level; presence of dementia, depression, or incontinence; being bedridden; medical record documentation of need for nursing home; and older age. Model performance, assessed using Somers' D, was 0.61 for 2 months and 0.57 for 12 months (Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) area = 0.81 and .79, respectively.) Bootstrap validation of the month 2 model also yielded a Somers' D = 0.60. The models were well calibrated over the entire risk range. The ROC area for prediction of the loss of independence was 0.76 for 2 months and 0.68 for 12 months., Conclusions: Many older patients are functionally impaired at the time of hospitalization, and many develop new functional limitations. A limited amount of readily available clinical information can yield satisfactory predictions of functional status 2 months after hospitalization. Models like this may prove to be useful in clinical care. This work illuminates a potential method for risk adjustment in research studies and for monitoring quality of care.

Objective: We evaluated prospectively the use of acute hemodialysis among hospitalized patients to identify demographic and clinical predictors of and chart documentation concerning dialysis withheld and withdrawn., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Five teaching hospitals., Patients: Five hundred sixty-five seriously ill hospitalized patients who had not previously undergone dialysis who developed renal failure., Main Outcome Measures: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, preferences, and prognostic estimates associated with having dialysis withheld rather than initiated and withdrawn rather than continued. Differences in chart documentation concerning decision-making for dialysis withheld, withdrawn, and continued., Results: Older patient age, cancer diagnosis, and male gender were associated with dialysis withheld rather than withdrawn. Age and gender differences persisted after adjustment for patients' aggressiveness of care preference. Worse 2-month prognosis was associated with both withholding and withdrawing dialysis. Chart documentation of decision-making was lacking more often for patients with dialysis withheld than for dialysis withdrawn., Conclusions: Measuring the equity of life-sustaining treatment use will require evaluation of care withheld, not just care withdrawn. Older patients and men, after accounting for prognosis and function, are more likely to have dialysis withheld than withdrawn after a trial. Further exploration is needed into this disparity and the inadequate chart documentation for patients with dialysis withheld.

Objective: To identify age group differences in care practices and outcomes for seriously ill hospitalized patients with malignancy., Design: Prospective cohort study (SUPPORT project)., Setting: Five United States teaching hospitals; data was gathered between 1989 and 1994., Subjects: Nine hundred twenty five older (age > or = 65 years), 983 middle aged (age = 45-64 years), and 274 younger (age = 18-44 years) hospitalized patients receiving care for non-small cell lung cancer, colon cancer metastasized to the liver, or multi-organ system failure associated with malignancy., Measurements: Care practices and patient outcomes were determined from hospital records. Length of survival was identified using the National Death Index. After adjusting for important variables, including severity of illness (i.e., SUPPORT model estimate for 2-month survival, cancer condition), hospital site, selection to intervention and sociodemographic variables, age group differences in care practices and outcomes were identified using general linear models., Results: Older patients with cancer had lower resource utilization during hospitalization (P < .04) and were less likely to receive cancer-related treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, platelet infusions, scheduled intravenous medications) than middle-aged and young-adult patients in the first week of hospitalization (P < or = .01). More care topics were discussed with older patients and their families then with younger patients and their families (P < .001). Length of stay and total hospital costs were lower for older and middle-aged patients than for younger patients. Although more older patients had discussions about transfer to hospice (P < .001), older patients were no more likely to be discharged with supportive care (inpatient hospice or home with home/ hospice care). Older patients died sooner than middle-aged patients (P < .01)., Conclusions: Patient age influenced care decisions and outcomes. Older patients (age > or = 65 years) received less aggressive care, had more discussions about care decisions, and died sooner than younger patients with cancer. Younger patients had longer stays, higher hospital costs, and greater probability of rehospitalization. Although well over half of patients died within 6 months of hospitalization, few patients in any age group were discharged with supportive care. Future studies should examine age differences in palliation, as well as acute care of cancer patients across inpatient and ambulatory care settings and should assess quality of care at the end of life.

Objective: To describe physician understanding of patient preferences concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to assess the relationship of physician understanding of patient preferences with do not resuscitate (DNR) orders and in-hospital CPR., Design: We evaluated physician understanding of patient CPR preference and the association of patient characteristics and physician-patient communication with physician understanding of patient CPR preferences. Among patients preferring to forego CPR, we compared attempted resuscitations and time to receive a DNR order between patients whose preference was understood or misunderstood by their physician., Patients/setting: Seriously ill hospitalized adult patients were enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for the Outcomes of Treatments. GENERAL RESULTS: Physicians understood 86% of patient preferences for CPR, but only 46% of patient preferences to forego CPR. Younger patient age, higher physician-estimated quality of life, and higher physician prediction of 6-month survival were independently associated with both physician understanding when a patient preferred to receive CPR and physician misunderstanding when a patient preferred to forego CPR. Physicians who spoke with patients about resuscitation and had longer physician-patient relationships understood patients' preferences to forego CPR more often. Patients whose physicians understood their preference to forego CPR more often received DNR orders, received them earlier, and were significantly less likely to undergo resuscitation., Conclusions: Physicians often misunderstand seriously ill, hospitalized patients' resuscitation preferences, especially preferences to forego CPR. Factors associated with misunderstanding suggest that physicians infer patients' preferences without asking the patient. Patients who prefer to forego CPR but whose wishes are not understood by their physician may receive unwanted treatment.

Objective: To evaluate prospectively seriously ill patients' characteristics, perceptions, and preferences associated with discussing resuscitation (CPR) with their physicians., Design: Prospective cohort., Setting: Five academic medical centers., Participants: Patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments who had not communicated with their physicians about CPR at admission to a hospital for life-threatening illness (n = 1288)., Measurements: Baseline surveys of patients' characteristics, health status, desires for participation in medical decision making, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Two month follow-up surveys of patients' communication of resuscitation preference. Chart reviews for clinical indicators., Results: Thirty percent of patients communicated their resuscitation preference to their physician during a 2 month-period following hospital admission. Patients whose preference was to forego CPR (odds ratio (OR) 2.9;(95% CI, 1.9-4.2)) and whose preference had changed from desiring to foregoing CPR (OR 1.6; (95% CI, 1.1-2.4)) were more likely to communicate their preference than patients who continued to prefer to receive CPR. However, only 50% of patients who maintained a preference to forego CPR communicated this over a 2-month period. Having an advance directive and remaining in the hospital at 2-month follow-up were also independently associated with communication, whereas patients' preference for participation in decision-making, health status, and prognostic estimate were not., Conclusions: Communication about resuscitation preferences occurred infrequently after hospital admission for a serious illness, even among patients wishing to forego resuscitation. Factors such as declining quality of life, which were expected to be associated with communication, were not. An invitation to communicate about CPR preference is important after hospital admission for a serious illness. Novel approaches are needed to promote physician-patient discussions about resuscitation.

Objective: To identify a set of geriatric conditions as optimal targets for quality improvement to be used in a quality measurement system for vulnerable older adults., Design: Discussion and two rounds of ranking of conditions by a panel of geriatric clinical experts informed by literature reviews., Methods: A list of 78 conditions common among vulnerable older people was reduced to 35 on the basis of their (1) prevalence, (2) impact on health and quality of life, (3) effectiveness of interventions in improving mortality and quality of life, (4) disparity in the quality of care across providers and geographic areas, and (5) feasibility of obtaining the data needed to test compliance with quality indicators. A panel of 12 experts in geriatric care discussed and then ranked the 35 conditions on the basis of the same five criteria. We then selected 21 conditions, based on panelists' iterative rankings. Using available national data, we compiled information about prevalence of the selected conditions for community-dwelling older people and older nursing home residents and estimated the proportion of inpatient and outpatient care attributable to the selected conditions., Results: The 21 conditions selected as targets for quality improvement among vulnerable older adults include (in rank order): pharmacologic management; depression; dementia; heart failure; stroke (and atrial fibrillation); hospitalization and surgery; falls and mobility disorders; diabetes mellitus; end-of-life care; ischemic heart disease; hypertension; pressure ulcers; osteoporosis; urinary incontinence; pain management; preventive services; hearing impairment; pneumonia and influenza; vision impairment; malnutrition; and osteoarthritis. The selected conditions had mean rank scores from 1.2 to 3.8, and those excluded from 4.6 to 6.9, on a scale from 1 (highest ranking) to 7 (lowest ranking). Prevalence of the selected conditions ranges from 10 to 50% among community-dwelling older adults and from 25 to 80% in nursing home residents for the six most common selected conditions. The 21 target conditions account for at least 43% of all acute hospital discharges and 33% of physician office visits among persons 65 years of age and older. Actual figures must be higher because several of the selected conditions (e.g., end-of-life care) are not recorded as diagnoses., Conclusions: Twenty-one conditions were selected as targets for quality improvement in vulnerable older people for use in a quality measurement system. The 21 geriatric conditions selected are highly prevalent in this group and likely account for more than half of the care provided to this group in hospital and ambulatory settings.

Objective: To evaluate whether nursing home residents and their families reported discussions about life-sustaining treatment with their physicians, the relationship between such discussions and orders to limit therapy, and predictors of physician-patient communication about life-sustaining treatment., Design: Cross-sectional interviews and retrospective chart abstraction., Setting: Three regions: West Coast, New England, Western., Sample: A total of 413 nursing home residents, 363 family/surrogate interviews, and 192 resident interviews., Main Outcome Measures: Measured were (1) physician-resident communication about life-sustaining treatment and (2) presence of an advance directive or do not resuscitate (DNR) order in resident's chart., Results: Seventy-four percent of residents had DNR orders, and 32% had advance directives; only 29% of residents reported discussions about life-sustaining treatment. Of residents with DNR orders who could have participated in discussions about life-sustaining treatment, nearly half reported they had not discussed CPR with their caregivers. Older age, longer duration of time living in nursing home, location in a New England nursing home, physician-family member discussion, and the presence of an advance directive in the medical chart were positively associated with having DNR orders. Physician-resident discussion was not associated with having a DNR order. For the subsample of interviewed residents, age and a diagnosis of cognitive impairment were negatively associated with a physician-resident discussion about life-sustaining treatment, whereas the likelihood of having a discussion increased with increasing numbers of medical diagnoses., Conclusions: Chart orders to limit therapy are common, but physician-resident discussions about life-sustaining treatments are not. Far more family members than residents report such discussions with the resident's physicians.

Objective: To evaluate the pain experience of very old hospitalized patients during and up to 1 year after hospitalization. To understand the relationship of level of pain to demographic, psychological, and illness-related variables., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Four teaching hospitals., Participants: 1266 patients at least 80 years of age in the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP)., Measurements: Pain interviews during hospitalization and 2 and 6 months later. Ordinal logistic regression was used to study the association of variables with level of pain., Results: Interviews about symptoms were available for 806 (64.6% of survivors) patients during hospitalization, 614 (57.9% of survivors) at 2-months, and 416 (48.0% of survivors) at 12 months; of these, 45.8, 49.8 and 53.6%, respectively, reported pain, and 12.9% of those with pain during hospitalization were dissatisfied with its control. Multivariable analysis revealed that study hospital, admission diagnosis, depressed mood, alertness, and level of activity 2 weeks before admission were associated with pain during hospitalization, and pain reported during hospitalization, study site, patient level of activity 2 weeks before hospital admission, and patient education were associated with pain 2 months later., Conclusions: Frequency of pain among very old hospitalized patients and at follow-up is similar to that reported for other hospitalized patients. Further studies of strategies to better control pain during and after hospitalization in very old patients are needed. These studies will have to adjust for other variables associated with pain in the oldest-old.

Objective: To evaluate patients' willingness to live permanently in a nursing home and surrogate and physician understanding of that preference., Design: Evaluation of cross-sectional interview data from a cohort study., Setting: Five academic medical centers., Participants: Seriously ill hospitalized adults enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)., Measurements: Patients' willingness to live permanently in a nursing home was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from "very willing" to "rather die." Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify patient demographic and clinical characteristics associated with this preference. Surrogate and physician perceptions of patient preferences were compared with patients' responses, and factors associated independently with surrogate and physician understanding of patient preference were identified., Results: Of 9105 patients, 3262 (36%) provided responses to the study question: 7% were "very willing" to live permanently in a nursing home, 19% "somewhat willing," 11% "somewhat unwilling," 26% "very unwilling," and 30% would "rather die." Older age was associated independently with less willingness to live permanently in a nursing home (odds ratio [OR] = .90 per decade; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 0.96). Patients with more education (OR = 1.03 per year; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.05) and more disabilities (OR = 1.05 per disability; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.09), and black patients (OR = 1.46 compared with white patients; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.76) were more willing to live in a nursing home. Surrogates understood 61% of patients' nursing home preferences but identified only 35% of patients who were willing to live permanently in a nursing home. Physicians identified 18% of patients willing to live permanently in a nursing home., Conclusion: Patient attitudes about living permanently in a nursing home can be elicited, cannot be reliably predicted from demographic and clinical variables, and are frequently misunderstood by surrogates and physicians. Elicitation of patient preferences regarding permanent nursing home placement should be explored before patients become unable to participate in decision making in order to enhance the concordance of patient preference with the way they spend the end of their lives.