Search

Approximately 20% of older persons with dementia have atrial fibrillation (AF). Nearly all have stroke risks that exceed the guideline-recommended threshold for anticoagulation. Although individuals with dementia develop profound impairments and die from the disease, little evidence exists to guide anticoagulant discontinuation, and almost one-third of nursing home residents with advanced dementia and AF remain anticoagulated in the last 6 months of life. We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of anticoagulation in this population.Using Minimum Data Set and Medicare claims, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with 14,877 long-stay nursing home residents aged ≥66 between 2013 and 2018 who had advanced dementia and AF. We excluded individuals with venous thromboembolism and valvular heart disease. We measured anticoagulant exposure quarterly, using Medicare Part D claims. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke and serious bleeding. We performed survival analyses with multivariable adjustment and inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting.In the study sample, 72.0% were female, 82.7% were aged ≥80 years, and 13.5% were nonwhite. Mean CHAPersons with advanced dementia and AF derive clinically modest life prolongation from anticoagulation, at the cost of elevated risk of bleeding. The relevance of this benefit is unclear in a group with high dementia-related mortality and for whom the primary goal is often comfort.

Background After hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), older adults may be at increased risk for falls due to deconditioning, new medications, and worsening health status. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for falls after AMI hospitalization among adults over age 75. Methods We used data from the Comprehensive Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with AMI (SILVER-AMI) study, a prospective cohort study of 3041 adults age 75 and older hospitalized with AMI at 94 community and academic medical centers across the United States. In-person interviews and physical assessments, as well as medical record review, were performed to collect demographic, clinical, functional, and psychosocial data. Falls were self-reported in telephone interviews and medically serious falls (those associated with emergency department use or hospitalization) were determined by medical record adjudication. Backward selection was used to identify predictors of fall risk in logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 554 (21.6%) participants reported a fall and 191 (6.4%) had a medically serious fall within 6 months of discharge. Factors independently associated with self-reported falls included impaired mobility, prior fall history, longer hospital stay, visual impairment, and weak grip. Factors independently associated with medically serious falls included older age, polypharmacy, impaired functional mobility, prior fall history, and living alone. Conclusions Among older patients hospitalized for AMI, falls are common in the 6 months following discharge and associated with demographic, functional, and clinical factors that are readily identifiable. Fall risk should be considered in post-AMI clinical decision-making and interventions to prevent falls should be evaluated.

To identify the distributions of and extent of variability among three new sets of post-discharge quality-metrics measured within 30/90/365 days designed to better account for the unique health needs of older trauma patients: mortality (expansion of the current in-hospital standard), readmission (marker of health-system performance and care coordination), and patients' average number of healthy days at home (HDAH; marker of patient functional status).Traumatic injuries are a leading cause of death and loss of independence for the increasing number of older adults living in the United States. Ongoing efforts seek to expand quality evaluation for this population.Using 100% Medicare claims, we calculated hospital-specific reliability-adjusted post-discharge quality-metrics for: older adults aged ≥65 years admitted with a primary diagnosis of trauma, older adults with hip fracture, and older adults with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Distributions for each quality-metric within each population were assessed and compared to results for in-hospital mortality, the current benchmarking standard.A total of 785,867 index admissions (305,186 hip fracture, 92,331 severe TBI) from 3,692 hospitals were included. Within each population, use of post-discharge quality-metrics yielded a broader range of outcomes compared to reliance on in-hospital mortality alone. None of the post-discharge quality-metrics consistently correlated with in-hospital mortality, including death within one year (r=0.581[95%CI:0.554-0.608]). Differences in quintile-rank revealed that when accounting for readmissions (8.4%, κ=0.029) and patients' average number of HDAH (7.1%, κ=0.020), as many as 1-in-14 hospitals changed from the best/worst performance under in-hospital mortality to the completely opposite quintile rank.Use of new post-discharge quality-metrics provides a more complete picture of older adult trauma care: one with greater room for improvement and better reflection of multiple aspects of quality important to the health and recovery of older trauma patients when compared to reliance on quality benchmarking based on in-hospital mortality alone.

Background Complex medication regimens, often present in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, may increase the risk of adverse drug effects and harm. We sought to characterize this complexity by determining the prevalence of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and therapeutic competition (where a medication for 1 condition may worsen another condition) in 1 of the few dedicated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction programs in the United States. Methods We conducted chart review on 231 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction seen in the University of Michigan's Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinic between July 2016 and September 2019. We recorded: 1) standing medications to determine the presence of polypharmacy, defined as ≥10 medications; 2) potentially inappropriate medications based on the 2016 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on drugs that pose a major risk of causing or exacerbating heart failure, the 2019 Beers Criteria update, or a previously described list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes; and 3) competing conditions and subsequent medications that could create therapeutic competition. Results The prevalence of polypharmacy was 74%, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications was 100%. Competing conditions were present in 81% of patients, of whom 49% took a medication that created therapeutic competition. Conclusion In addition to confirming that polypharmacy was highly prevalent, we found that potentially inappropriate medications and therapeutic competition were also frequently present. This supports the urgent need to develop patient-centered approaches to mitigate the negative effects of complex medication regimens endemic to adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

After hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), older adults may be at increased risk for falls due to deconditioning, new medications, and worsening health status. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for falls after AMI hospitalization among adults over age 75.We used data from the Comprehensive Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with AMI (SILVER-AMI) study, a prospective cohort study of 3041 adults age 75 and older hospitalized with AMI at 94 community and academic medical centers across the United States. In-person interviews and physical assessments, as well as medical record review, were performed to collect demographic, clinical, functional, and psychosocial data. Falls were self-reported in telephone interviews and medically serious falls (those associated with emergency department use or hospitalization) were determined by medical record adjudication. Backward selection was used to identify predictors of fall risk in logistic regression analysis.A total of 554 (21.6%) participants reported a fall and 191 (6.4%) had a medically serious fall within 6 months of discharge. Factors independently associated with self-reported falls included impaired mobility, prior fall history, longer hospital stay, visual impairment, and weak grip. Factors independently associated with medically serious falls included older age, polypharmacy, impaired functional mobility, prior fall history, and living alone.Among older patients hospitalized for AMI, falls are common in the 6 months following discharge and associated with demographic, functional, and clinical factors that are readily identifiable. Fall risk should be considered in post-AMI clinical decision-making and interventions to prevent falls should be evaluated.

This cross-sectional study assesses how patient-identified top health priorities can be incorporated into the care of older adults with multiple chronic conditions while facilitating decision-making that aligns with these priorities.

ObjectiveTo develop a 180-day readmission risk model for older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) that considered a broad range of clinical, demographic and age-related functional domains.MethodsWe used data from ComprehenSIVe Evaluation of Risk in Older Adults with AMI (SILVER-AMI), a prospective cohort study that enrolled participants aged ≥75 years with AMI from 94 US hospitals. Participants underwent an in-hospital assessment of functional impairments, including cognition, vision, hearing and mobility. Clinical variables previously shown to be associated with readmission risk were also evaluated. The outcome was 180-day readmission. From an initial list of 72 variables, we used backward selection and Bayesian model averaging to derive a risk model (N=2004) that was subsequently internally validated (N=1002).ResultsOf the 3006 SILVER-AMI participants discharged alive, mean age was 81.5 years, 44.4% were women and 10.5% were non-white. Within 180 days, 1222 participants (40.7%) were readmitted. The final risk model included 10 variables: history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of heart failure, initial heart rate, first diastolic blood pressure, ischaemic ECG changes, initial haemoglobin, ejection fraction, length of stay, self-reported health status and functional mobility. Model discrimination was moderate (0.68 derivation cohort, 0.65 validation cohort), with good calibration. The predicted readmission rate (derivation cohort) was 23.0% in the lowest quintile and 65.4% in the highest quintile.ConclusionsOver 40% of participants in our sample experienced hospital readmission within 180 days of AMI. Our final readmission risk model included a broad range of characteristics, including functional mobility and self-reported health status, neither of which have been previously considered in 180-day risk models.

Caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) is challenging. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) previously developed The AGS Guiding Principles for the Care of Older Adults With Multimorbidity using a systematic review of the literature and consensus. The objective of the current work was to translate these principles into a framework of Actions and accompanying Action Steps for decision making for clinicians who provide both primary and specialty care to older people with MCCs. A work group of geriatricians, cardiologists, and generalists: (1) articulated the core MCC Actions and the Action Steps needed to carry out the Actions; (2) provided decisional tips and communication scripts for implementing the Actions and Action Steps, using commonly encountered situations: (3) performed a scoping review to identify evidence-based, validated tools for carrying out the MCC Actions and Action Steps; and (4) identified potential barriers to, and mitigating factors for, implementing the MCC Actions. The recommended MCC Actions include: (1) identify and communicate patients' health priorities and health trajectory; (2) stop, start, or continue care based on health priorities, potential benefit vs harm and burden, and health trajectory; and (3) align decisions and care among patients, caregivers, and other clinicians with patients' health priorities and health trajectory. The tips and scripts for carrying out these Actions are included in the full MCC Action Framework available in the supplement (www.GeriatricsCareOnline.org). J Am Geriatr Soc 67:665-673, 2019.

Objectives Patient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI. Design Qualitative study using thematic analysis. Setting In-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews. Participants Twenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process. Measurements Open-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement. Results Patient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits. Conclusions Patients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.

Key Points Question What are the common goals and health care preferences of older adults with multiple health conditions? Findings In this cross-sectional study, 163 older adults reported 459 goals, most commonly encompassing activities with family and friends (24.2%), shopping (6.1%), exercising (4.6%), and living independently (4.4%). Medications most commonly cited as helpful were nonopioid pain medications (65.5% of users), sleep medications (52.9% of users), and inhalants (42.2% of users), whereas statins (25.8% of users) and antidepressants (32.5% of users) were the most commonly reported bothersome medications. Meaning Participants identified realistic and doable goals and health care preferences; this information can inform decision-making., This cross-sectional study describes the outcome goals and health care preferences of older adults with multiple chronic conditions., Importance Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) vary in their health outcome goals and the health care that they prefer to receive to achieve these goals. Objective To describe the outcome goals and health care preferences of this population with MCCs. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study included participants in the Patient Priorities Care study who underwent health priorities identification from February 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, in a primary care practice. Patients eligible to participate were 65 years or older, English speaking, and had at least 3 chronic conditions; in addition, they used at least 10 medications, saw at least 2 specialists, or had at least 2 emergency department visits or 1 hospitalization during the past year. Of 236 eligible patients, 163 (69%) agreed to participate in this study. Data were analyzed from August 1 to October 31, 2020. Exposures Guided by facilitators, participants identified their core values, as many as 3 actionable and realistic outcome goals, health-related barriers to these goals, and as many as 3 helpful and 3 bothersome health care activities. Main Outcomes and Measures Frequencies were ascertained for outcome goals and health care preferences. Preferences included health care activities (medications, health care visits, procedures, diagnostic tests, and self-management) reported as either helpful or bothersome. Results Most of the 163 participants were White (158 [96.9%]) and women (109 [66.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 77.6 (7.6) years. Of 459 goals, the most common encompassed meals and other activities with family and friends (111 [24.2%]), shopping (28 [6.1%]), and exercising (21 [4.6%]). Twenty individuals (12.3%) desired to live independently without specifying necessary activities. Of 312 barriers identified, the most common were pain (128 [41.0%]), fatigue (45 [14.4%]), unsteadiness (42 [13.5%]), and dyspnea (19 [6.1%]). Similar proportions of patients identified at least 1 medication that was helpful (130 [79.8%]) or bothersome (128 [78.5%]). Medications most commonly cited as helpful were pain medications, including nonopiods (36 of 55 users [65.5%]) and opioids (15 of 27 users [55.6%]); sleep medications (27 of 51 users [52.9%]); and respiratory inhalants (19 of 45 [42.2%]). Most often mentioned as bothersome were statins (25 of 97 users [25.8%]) and antidepressants (13 of 40 users [32.5%]). Thirty-two participants (19.6%) reported using too many medications. Health care visits were identified as helpful by 43 participants (26.4%); 15 (9.2%) reported too many visits. Procedures were named helpful by 38 participants (23.3%); 24 (14.7%) cited unwanted procedures. Among 48 participants with diabetes, monitoring of glucose levels was doable for 18 (37.5%) and too bothersome for 9 (18.8%). Conclusions and Relevance Participants identified realistic and actionable goals while varying in health care activities deemed helpful or bothersome. The goals and health care preferences of more diverse populations must be explored. Previous work suggests that clinicians can use this information in decision-making.

Key Points Question Can the intensity of hypertension treatment by total dose burden for older patients be accurately quantified using only health system administrative pharmacy fill data? Findings In this cross-sectional study, dose intensity measured using pharmacy data in a national health care system was highly correlated with dose intensity documented in clinical notes by using a new algorithm that can be applied to an individual patient on any given day. Meaning This study suggests that intensity of hypertension treatment can be measured using pharmacy data at a more detailed level than using medication counts or blood pressure alone for quality comparison or as a research tool., Importance Simple measures of hypertension treatment, such as achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets, ignore the intensity of treatment once the BP target is met. High-intensity treatment involves increased treatment burden and can be associated with potential adverse effects in older adults. A method was previously developed to identify older patients receiving intense hypertension treatment by low BP and number of BP medications using national Veterans Health Administration and Medicare Part D administrative pharmacy data to evaluate which BP medications a patient is likely taking on any given day. Objective To further develop and validate a method to more precisely quantify dose intensity of hypertension treatment using only health system administrative pharmacy fill data. Design, Setting, and Participants Observational, cross-sectional study of 319 randomly selected older veterans in the national Veterans Health Administration health care system who were taking multiple BP-lowering medications and had a total of 3625 ambulatory care visits from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013. Measure development and medical record review occurred January 1, 2017, through November 30, 2018, and data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures For each BP-lowering medication, a moderate hypertension daily dose (HDD) was defined as half the maximum dose above which no further clinical benefit has been demonstrated by that medication in hypertension trials. Patients’ total HDD was calculated using pharmacy data (pharmacy HDDs), accounting for substantial delays in refills (>30 days) when a patient’s pill supply was stretched (eg, cutting existing pills in half). As an external comparison, the pharmacy HDDs were correlated with doses manually extracted from clinicians’ visit notes (clinically noted HDDs). How well the pharmacy HDDs correlated with clinically noted HDDs was calculated (using C statistics). To facilitate interpretation, HDDs were described in association with the number of medications. Results A total of 316 patients (99.1%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 75.6 (7.2) years. Pharmacy HDDs were highly correlated (r = 0.92) with clinically noted HDDs, with a mean (SD) of 2.7 (1.8) for pharmacy HDDs and 2.8 (1.8) for clinically noted HDDs. Pharmacy HDDs correlated with high-intensity, clinically noted HDDs ranging from a C statistic of 92.8% (95% CI, 92.0%-93.7%) for 2 or more clinically noted HDDs to 88.1% (95% CI, 85.5%-90.6%) for 6 or more clinically noted HDDs. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that health system pharmacy data may be used to accurately quantify hypertension regimen dose intensity. Together with clinic-measured BP, this tool can be used in future health system–based research or quality improvement efforts to fine-tune, manage, and optimize hypertension treatment in older adults., This cross-sectional study develops and validates a method to more precisely quantify dose intensity of hypertension treatment using only health system administrative pharmacy fill data.

Objectives To develop a values‐based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision‐making. Design Prospective development and feasibility study. Setting Primary care practice in Connecticut. Participants Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64). Intervention The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user‐centered design framework—ideate → prototype → test →redesign—to develop and refine the value‐based patient priorities care process and medical record template with trained clinician facilitators. Measurements We used descriptive statistics of quantitative measures (percentage accepted invitation and completed template, duration of process) and qualitative analysis of barriers and enablers (challenges and solutions identified, facilitator perceptions). Results We developed and refined a process for identifying patient health priorities that was typically completed in 35 to 45 minutes over 2 sessions; 64 patients completed the process. Qualitative analyses were used to elucidate the characteristics and training needed for the patient priorities facilitators, as well as perceived benefits and challenges of the process. Refinements based on our experience and feedback include streamlining the process for greater feasibility, balancing fidelity to the process while customizing to individuals, encouraging patients to share their priorities with their clinicians, and simplifying the template transmitted to clinicians. Conclusion Trained facilitators conducted this process in a busy primary care practice, suggesting that patient priorities identification is feasible and acceptable, although testing in additional settings is necessary. We hope to show that clinicians can align care with patients' health priorities.

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) receive care that is fragmented and burdensome, lacks evidence, and most importantly is not focused on what matters most to them. An implementation feasibility study of Patient Priorities Care (PPC), a new approach to care that is based on health outcome goals and healthcare preferences, was conducted. This study took place at 1 primary care and 1 cardiology practice in Connecticut and involved 9 primary care providers (PCPs), 5 cardiologists, and 119 older adults with MCCs. PPC was implemented using methods based on a practice change framework and continuous plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Core elements included leadership support, clinical champions, priorities facilitators, training, electronic health record (EHR) support, workflow development and continuous modification, and collaborative learning. PPC processes for clinic workflow and decision-making were developed, and clinicians were trained. After 10 months, 119 older adults enrolled and had priorities identified; 92 (77%) returned to their PCP after priorities identification. In 56 (46%) of these visits, clinicians documented patient priorities discussions. Workflow challenges identified and solved included patient enrollment lags, EHR documentation of priorities discussions, and interprofessional communication. Time for clinicians to provide PPC remains a challenge, as does decision-making, including clinicians' perceptions that they are already doing so; clinicians' concerns about guidelines, metrics, and unrealistic priorities; and differences between PCPs and patients and between PCPs and cardiologists about treatment decisions. PDSA cycles and continuing collaborative learning with national experts and peers are taking place to address workflow and clinical decision-making challenges. Translating disease-based to priorities-aligned decision-making appears challenging but feasible to implement in a clinical setting.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns and perceived benefits of seven major complementary health approaches (CHA) among older adults in the United States. METHODS: Data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which represents non-institutionalized adults aged 65 or older (n = 7,116 unweighted), were used. We elicited seven most common CHA used in older adults, which are acupuncture, herbal therapies, chiropractic, massage, meditation, Tai Chi, and yoga. Survey participants were asked to self-report perceived benefits (eg, maintaining health and stress reduction) in their CHA used. We estimated prevalence and perceived benefits of CHA use. We also investigated socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with the use of any of these seven CHA. RESULTS: Overall, 29.2% of older adults used any of seven CHA in the past year. Most commonly used CHA included herbal therapies (18.1%), chiropractic (8.4%), and massage (5.7%). More than 60% of older CHA users reported that CHA were important for maintaining health and well-being. Other perceived benefits included improving overall health and feeling better (52.3%), giving a better sense of control over health (27.4%), and making it easier to cope with health problems (24.7%). Older adults with higher education and income levels, ≥2 chronic conditions, and functional limitations had greater odds of using CHA (p < .01, respectively). CONCLUSION: A substantial number of older CHA users reported CHA-related benefits. CHA may play a crucial role in improving health status among older adults. At the population level, further research on the effects of CHA use on bio-psycho-social outcomes is needed to promote healthy aging in older adults.

Objectives To compare the accuracy of and factors affecting the accuracy of self‐reported fall‐related injuries (SFRIs) with those of administratively obtained FRIs (AFRIs). Design Retrospective observational study Setting United States Participants Fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older (N=47,215). Measurements We used 24‐month self‐report recall data from 2000–2012 Health and Retirement Study data to identify SFRIs and linked inpatient, outpatient, and ambulatory Medicare data to identify AFRIs. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed, with AFRIs defined using the University of California at Los Angeles/RAND algorithm as the criterion standard. Logistic regression models were used to identify sociodemographic and health predictors of sensitivity. Results Overall sensitivity and specificity were 28% and 92%. Sensitivity was greater for the oldest adults (38%), women (34%), those with more functional limitations (47%), and those with a prior fall (38%). In adjusted results, several participant factors (being female, being white, poor functional status, depression, prior falls) were modestly associated with better sensitivity and specificity. Injury severity (requiring hospital care) most substantively improved SFRI sensitivity (73%). Conclusion An overwhelming 72% of individuals who received Medicare‐reimbursed health care for FRIs failed to report a fall injury when asked. Future efforts to address underreporting in primary care of nonwhite and healthier older adults are critical to improve preventive efforts. Redesigned questions—for example, that address stigma of attributing injury to falling—may improve sensitivity.

Background/Objectives Timely administration of antiischemic therapies improves outcomes in individuals with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prior literature on delays in AMI care has largely focused on in-hospital delay (“door to balloon” time). Our objective was to identify factors associated with prehospital delay in a contemporary national cohort of older adults with AMI. Design Cross-sectional analysis of data from the ComprehenSIVe Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (SILVER-AMI) study, an observational study of older adults hospitalized for AMI. Setting U.S. academic and community hospitals (N = 94). Participants Individuals aged 75 and older hospitalized for AMI (N = 2,500). Measurements Prehospital delay was defined as symptom duration of 6 hours or longer before hospital presentation and was obtained according to participant or caregiver report during AMI hospitalization. Potential predictors of delay from demographic, clinical presentation, comorbid conditions, function, and social support domains were obtained through in-person assessment during the index hospitalization and medical record abstraction. Results Nonwhite race (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.54, P = .002), atypical symptoms (aOR = 1.41, P = .001), and heart failure (HF) (aOR = 1.35, P = .006 for HF) were significantly associated with delay. Conclusion In contrast with younger AMI populations, female sex and diabetes mellitus were not associated with delay in this older cohort, but factors from other domains (nonwhite race, atypical symptoms, and HF) were significantly associated with delay. These results can be used to customize future public health efforts to encourage early presentation for older adults with AMI.

Background/Objectives: The benefit or harm of a single medication recommended for one specific condition can be difficult to determine in individuals with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy. There is limited information on the associations between guideline-recommended medications and physical function in older adults with multiple chronic conditions. The objective of this study was to estimate the beneficial or harmful associations between guideline-recommended medications and decline in physical function in older adults with multiple chronic conditions. Design: Prospective observational cohort. Setting: National. Participants: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey study (N = 3,273). Participants with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, depression, diabetes mellitus, or heart failure were included. Measurements: Self-reported decline in physical function; guideline-recommended medications; polypharmacy (taking

In the United States, older adults account for a significant proportion of hospitalizations, and a subset become hospital-dependent, for reasons that are unclear. We conducted a qualitative study to explore these individuals' perspectives on their need for hospitalizations. Twenty patients hospitalized at an academic medical center underwent semistructured qualitative interviews. Criteria for selection included age 65 and older, at least three hospitalizations over six months, admission to the medical service at the time of the study, did not meet criteria for chronic critical illness, was not comfort measures only, and did not have a conservator. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and inductively analyzed. The major themes derived were the necessity and inevitability of hospitalizations ("You have to bring me in here"), feeling safe in the hospital ("It makes me feel more secure"), patients hospitalized despite having outside medical and social support ("I have everything"), and inadequate goals-of-care discussions ("It just doesn't occur to me"). Results suggested that candid discussions about health trajectories are needed to ensure hospitalization is consistent with the patient's realistic health priorities. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:450-453.

Purpose: To quantify the burden and complexity associated with treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage I NSCLC from 2007 to 2011 and who were treated with surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or external beam radiation therapy. Main outcome measures were the number of days a patient was in contact with the health care system (encounter days), the number of physicians involved in a patient’s care, and the number of medications prescribed. Logistic regression modeled the association between patient characteristics, treatment type, and high treatment burden (defined as ≥ 66 encounter days). Results: On average, 7,955 patients spent 1 in 3 days interacting with the health care system during the initial 60 days of treatment. Patients experienced a median of 44 encounter days with high variability (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 66) in the 12 months after treatment initiation. The median number of physicians involved was 20 (IQR, 14 to 28), and the median number of medications prescribed was 12 (IQR, 8 to 17). Patients who were treated with surgery had high treatment burden (predicted probability, 21.6%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 23.1) compared with patients who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (predicted probability, 16.1%; 95% CI, 12.9 to 19.3), whereas patients who were treated with external beam radiation therapy had the highest burden (predicted probability, 46.8%; 95% CI, 43.3 to 50.2). Conclusion: The treatment burden imposed on patients with early-stage NSCLC was substantial in terms of the number of encounters, physicians involved, and medications prescribed. Because treatment burden varied markedly across patients and treatment types, future work should identify opportunities to understand and ameliorate this burden.

Background/objectives Aligning healthcare decisions with patients' priorities may improve care for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of identifying patient priorities in routine geriatrics care and to compare clinicians' recommendations for patients who did or did not have their priorities identified. Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Veterans Administration Medical Center Geriatrics Clinic. Participants Older adults with MCCs receiving Patient Priorities Care (PPC; n = 35) were matched with patients receiving usual care (UC; n = 35). Both PPC and UC patients were cared for by three primary care providers (PCPs) in an ambulatory geriatric clinic. Intervention In the PPC group, a clinician facilitator met with each patient to identify their healthcare priorities and transmitted patients' priorities in the electronic health record (EHR). Trained PCPs then sought to align healthcare decisions with patients' priorities. In the UC group, patients received usual care from the same PCPs. Measurements We matched patients by clinician seen, patient's age, number of active conditions, medications, hospitalizations, functional status, and prior hospitalizations. EHRs were reviewed to identify care decisions including medications added or stopped, referrals and consults added or avoided, referrals to community services and supports, self-management activities added or avoided, and total number of changes to care. Mean differences in recommended care between PPC and UC patients from the same PCPs were examined. Results Clinician facilitators could identify patient priorities during routine clinic encounters. Compared with patients in the UC group, those in the PPC group had, on average, fewer medications added (P = .05), more referrals to community services and supports (P = .03), and more priorities-aligned self-management tasks added (P = .005). Conclusion These findings support the feasibility of identifying and documenting patient priorities during routine encounters. Results also suggest that clinicians use patient priorities in recommending care.

Background: Early readmissions among older adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are costly and difficult to predict. Aging-related functional impairments may inform risk prediction but are unavailable in most studies. Our objective was to, therefore, develop and validate an AMI readmission risk model for older patients who considered functional impairments and was suitable for use before hospital discharge. Methods and Results: SILVER-AMI (Comprehensive Evaluation of Risk in Older Adults with AMI) is a prospective cohort study of 3006 patients of age ≥75 years hospitalized with AMI at 94 US hospitals. Participants underwent in-hospital assessment of functional impairments including cognition, vision, hearing, and mobility. Other variables plausibly associated with readmissions were also collected. The outcome was all-cause readmission at 30 days. We used backward selection and Bayesian model averaging to derive (N=2004) a risk model that was subsequently validated (N=1002). Mean age was 81.5 years, 44.4% were women, and 10.5% were nonwhite. Within 30 days, 547 participants (18.2%) were readmitted. Readmitted participants were older, had more comorbidities, and had a higher prevalence of functional impairments, including activities of daily living disability (17.0% versus 13.0%; P =0.013) and impaired functional mobility (72.5% versus 53.6%; P P value >0.05) with moderate discrimination (C statistics: 0.65 derivation cohort and 0.63 validation cohort). Functional mobility significantly improved performance of the risk model (net reclassification improvement index =20%; P Conclusions: In our final risk model, functional mobility, previously not included in readmission risk models, was the strongest predictor of 30-day readmission among older adults after AMI. The modest discrimination indicates that much of the variability in readmission risk among this population remains unexplained by patient-level factors. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01755052.

Multimorbidity, the coexistence of multiple chronic conditions, is common among all adults receiving health care and the norm among older adults. The authors discuss the limitations of disease-focu...

Caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) is challenging. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) previously developed The AGS Guiding Principles for the Care of Older Adults With Multimorbidity using a systematic review of the literature and consensus. The objective of the current work was to translate these principles into a framework of Actions and accompanying Action Steps for decision making for clinicians who provide both primary and specialty care to older people with MCCs. A work group of geriatricians, cardiologists, and generalists: (1) articulated the core MCC Actions and the Action Steps needed to carry out the Actions; (2) provided decisional tips and communication scripts for implementing the Actions and Action Steps, using commonly encountered situations: (3) performed a scoping review to identify evidence-based, validated tools for carrying out the MCC Actions and Action Steps; and (4) identified potential barriers to, and mitigating factors for, implementing the MCC Actions. The recommended MCC Actions include: (1) identify and communicate patients' health priorities and health trajectory; (2) stop, start, or continue care based on health priorities, potential benefit vs harm and burden, and health trajectory; and (3) align decisions and care among patients, caregivers, and other clinicians with patients' health priorities and health trajectory. The tips and scripts for carrying out these Actions are included in the full MCC Action Framework available in the supplement (www.GeriatricsCareOnline.org). J Am Geriatr Soc 67:665-673, 2019.

Assessing medication burden to evaluate the quality of pharmacotherapy in older adults can be performed using a range of indicators including polypharmacy. Polypharmacy is a common term in the lite...

Key Points Question What are older adults’ risks of fall injuries in the periods surrounding hospitalization? Findings This retrospective cohort study using national survey and linked Medicare data observed spikes in older adult fall injury risk in the periods just before and after hospitalization. Risk increases were particularly pronounced for those who experienced an inpatient fall injury. Meaning These findings suggest that efforts to improve coordination of fall injury risk during care transitions into and out of the hospital are needed., This cohort study estimates the risk of older adult fall injury within and across discrete periods during a 12-month care episode anchored by an acute hospitalization., Importance To date, measurement and treatment of older adult fall injury has been siloed within specific care settings, such as a hospital or within a nursing home or community. Little is known about changes in fall risk across care settings. Understanding the occurrence of falls across settings has implications for measuring and incentivizing high-value care across care settings. Objective To estimate the risk of older adult fall injury within and across discrete periods during a 12-month care episode anchored by an acute hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study is a longitudinal analysis of 12-month periods that include an anchor hospital stay using national data from 2006 to 2014. Participants included older (aged ≥65 years) Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from the Health and Retirement Study. Weekly fall injury rates were computed for 4 periods compared with the anchor hospitalization: at baseline (1-6 months before hospitalization), just before (

Importance Blood pressure (BP) targets are the main measure of high-quality hypertension care in health systems. However, BP alone does not reflect intensity of pharmacological treatment, which should be carefully managed in older patients. Objectives To develop and validate an electronic health record (EHR) data-only algorithm using pharmacy and BP data to capture intensive hypertension care (IHC), defined as 3 or more BP medications and BP less than 120 mm Hg, and to identify conditions associated with greater IHC, either through greater algorithm false-positive IHC, or by contributing clinically to delivering more IHC. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was conducted among 319 randomly selected patients aged 65 years or older receiving IHC from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013. Data were collected from a total of 3625 primary care visits. Data were analyzed from January 2017 to March 2020. Exposures Calibration and measurement of the algorithm for IHC (algorithm IHC). Main Outcomes and Measures For each primary care visit, the reference standard, clinical IHC, was determined by detailed review of free-text clinical notes. The correlation in BP medication count between the EHR-only algorithm vs the reference standard and the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm IHC were calculated. In addition, presence vs absence of contributing conditions acting in combination with hypertension management were measured to examine incidence of IHC associated with contributing conditions, including an acute condition that lowered BP (eg, dehydration), another condition requiring a BP target lower than the standard 140 mm Hg (eg, diabetes), or the patient needing a BP-lowering medication for a nonhypertension condition (eg, β-blocker for atrial fibrillation) resulting in low BP. Results Among 319 patients with 3625 visits (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.2] years; 3592 [99.1%] men), 911 visits (25.1%) had clinical IHC by the reference standard. The algorithm for determining medication count was highly correlated with the reference standard (r = 0.84). Sensitivity of detecting clinical IHC was 92.2% (95% CI, 89.3%-95.1%), and specificity was 97.2% (95% CI, 96.1%-98.3%), suggesting that clinical IHC can be identified from routinely collected data. Only 75 visits (2.1%) were algorithm IHC false positives, 55 visits (1.5%) involved IHC with contributing conditions, and 125 visits (3.5%) involved either false-positive or IHC with contributing conditions. Among select contributing conditions, congestive heart failure (37 patients [5.2%]) was most associated with a prespecified combined false-positive or IHC with contributing conditions rate higher than 5%. Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that health system data can be used reliably to estimate IHC.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have higher prevalence of functional impairments, including deficits in cognition, strength, and sensory domains, than their younger counterparts. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate the prognostic utility of a risk model for 6-month post-AMI mortality in older adults that incorporates information about functional impairments. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01755052) SETTING: 94 hospitals throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 3006 persons aged 75 years or older who were hospitalized with AMI and discharged alive. MEASUREMENTS: Functional impairments were assessed during hospitalization via direct measurement (cognition, mobility, muscle strength) or self-report (vision, hearing). Clinical variables associated with mortality in prior risk models were ascertained by chart review. Seventy-two candidate variables were selected for inclusion, and backward selection and Bayesian model averaging were used to derive (n = 2004 participants) and validate (n = 1002 participants) a model for 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Participants’ mean age was 81.5 years, 44.4% were women, and 10.5% were nonwhite. There were 266 deaths (8.8%) within 6 months. The final risk model included 15 variables, 4 of which were not included in prior risk models: hearing impairment, mobility impairment, weight loss, and lower patient-reported health status. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer–Lemeshow P > 0.05) and showed good discrimination (area under the curve for the validation cohort = 0.84). Adding functional impairments significantly improved model performance, as evidenced by category-free net reclassification improvement indices of 0.21 (P = 0.008) for hearing impairment and 0.26 (P < 0.001) for mobility impairment. LIMITATION: The model was not externally validated. CONCLUSION: A newly developed model for 6-month post-AMI mortality in older adults was well calibrated and had good discriminatory ability. This model may be useful in decision making at hospital discharge. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Patient Priorities Care (PPC) is an approach to decision-making for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). PPC trains facilitators to have structured conversations with patients to identify their priorities (the outcomes that matter most given what care they are willing/able to do or receive). Clinicians then align care to achieve patient priorities rather than focusing on multiple single-disease guidelines. We piloted PPC in a VA geriatrics clinic and compared it to usual care (UC) for multimorbid adults. This retrospective cohort study (n=36 PPC, 36 UC) describes changes made by clinicians after Veterans with MCC had facilitated conversations in a VA geriatric clinic. UC Veterans were matched by prognosis, same primary clinician, and timeframe. Coders used a standardized rubric to assess documented care within medical records. Changes to care examined include medications added/removed, referrals made/avoided, self-care recommendations, and recommendations for social engagement. Although PPC and UC patients were seen by the same clinicians, patients receiving PPC had fewer added medications (mean difference -.47, t(70)=-1.99, p=.05); received more recommendations for self-care aligned with priorities (mean difference .25, t(69)=2.14, p=.003); received more recommended consultations with desired care, including podiatry, transportation, and dermatology (mean difference .55, t(70)=2.06, p=.01), and more recommendations for care and services to facilitate social interactions (p

Although the majority of older adults in the developed world live with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), the task of selecting optimal treatment regimens is still fraught with difficulty. Older adults with MCCs may derive less benefit from prescribed medications than healthier patients as a result of the competing risk of several possible outcomes including, but not limited to, death before a benefit can be accrued. In addition, these patients may be at increased risk of medication-related harms in the form of adverse effects and significant burdens of treatment. At present, the balance of these benefits and harms is often uncertain, given that older adults with MCCs are often excluded from clinical trials. In this review, we propose a framework to consider patients’ own priorities to achieve optimal treatment regimens. To begin, the practicing clinician needs information on the patient’s goals, what the patient is willing and able to do to achieve these goals, an estimate of the patient’s clinical trajectory, and what the patient is actually taking. We then describe how to integrate this information to understand what matters most to the patient in the context of an array of potential tradeoffs. Finally, we propose conducting serial therapeutic trials of prescribing and deprescribing, with success measured as progress towards the patient’s own health outcome goals. The process described in this manuscript is truly an iterative process, which should be repeated regularly to account for changes in the patient’s priorities and clinical status. With this process, we aim to achieve optimal prescribing, that is, treatment regimens that maximize benefits that matter to the patient and minimize burdens and potential harms.

Objectives To evaluate physician-perceived strengths and limitations of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk scores for use in older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background The TIMI risk scores are risk stratification models developed to estimate mortality risk for patients hospitalized for AMI. However, these models were developed and validated in cohorts underrepresenting older adults (≥75 years). Methods Qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews and the constant comparative method for analysis. Results Twenty-two physicians completed interviews ranging 10–30 min (mean = 18 min). Median sample age was 37 years, with a median of 11.5 years of clinical experience. TIMI strengths included familiarity, ease of use, and validation. Limitations included a lack of risk factors relevant to older adults and model scope and influence. Conclusions Physicians report that the TIMI models, while widely used in clinical practice, have limitations when applied to older adults. New risk models are needed to guide AMI treatment in this population.

Objective To understand how older persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) approach decisions about cancer screening. Materials and Methods We conducted interviews with adults > 65 years old with at least two chronic conditions who were taking ≥ five medications daily. Patients were first asked how age and multimorbidity influence their cancer screening decisions. After showing them an educational prompt that explained the relationship between life expectancy and the benefits of cancer screening, respondents were then asked about screening in the context of specific health scenarios. Using grounded theory, three independent readers coded responses for salient themes. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation. Results Most respondents (26 of 28) initially indicated that their overall health or medical conditions do not influence their cancer screening decisions. After viewing the educational prompt, respondents described two broad approaches to cancer screening in the setting of increasing age or multi-morbidity. The first was a “benefits versus harms” approach in which participants weighed direct health benefits (e.g. reducing cancer incidence or mortality) and harms (e.g. complications or inconvenience). The second was a heuristic approach. Some heuristics favored screening, such as a persistent belief in unspecified benefits from screening, value of knowledge about cancer status, and not wanting to “give up”, whereas other heuristics discouraged screening, such as fatalism or a reluctance to learn about their cancer status. Conclusions When considering cancer screening, some older persons with MCC employ heuristics which circumvent the traditional quantitative comparison of risks and benefits, providing an important challenge to informed decision making.

Objective: To ascertain perspectives of multiple stakeholders on contributors to inappropriate care for older adults with multiple chronic conditions. Method: Perspectives of 36 purposively sampled patients, clinicians, health systems, and payers were elicited. Data analysis followed a constant comparative method. Results: Structural factors triggering burden and fragmentation include disease-based quality metrics and need to interact with multiple clinicians. The key cultural barrier identified is the assumption that “physicians know best.” Inappropriate decision making may result from inattention to trade-offs and adherence to multiple disease guidelines. Stakeholders recommended changes in culture, structure, and decision making. Care options and quality metrics should reflect a focus on patients’ priorities. Clinician–patient partnerships should reflect patients knowing their health goals and clinicians knowing how to achieve them. Access to specialty expertise should not require visits. Discussion: Stakeholders’ recommendations suggest health care redesigns that incorporate patients’ health priorities into care decisions and realign relationships across patients and clinicians.

Objectives To prioritize research topics relevant to the care of the growing population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Design Survey of experts in MCC practice, research, and policy. Topics were derived from white papers, funding announcements, or funded research projects relating to older adults with MCCs. Setting Survey conducted through the Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN) and Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Centers (OAICs) Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure and Network Growth Initiative, a joint endeavor of the HCSRN and OAICs. Participants Individuals affiliated with the HCSRN or OAICs and national MCC experts, including individuals affiliated with funding agencies having MCC-related grant portfolios. Measurements A “top box” methodology was used, counting the number of respondents selecting the top response on a 5-point Likert scale and dividing by the total number of responses to calculate a top box percentage for each of 37 topics. Results The highest-ranked research topics relevant to the health and healthcare of older adults with MCCs were health-related quality of life in older adults with MCCs; development of assessment tools (to assess, e.g., symptom burden, quality of life, function); interactions between medications, disease processes, and health outcomes; disability; implementation of novel (and scalable) models of care; association between clusters of chronic conditions and clinical, financial, and social outcomes; role of caregivers; symptom burden; shared decision-making to enhance care planning; and tools to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusion Study findings serve to inform the development of a comprehensive research agenda to address the challenges relating to the care of this “high-need, high-cost” population and the healthcare delivery systems responsible for serving it.

Objectives Men treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer have an increased risk for fractures. Given uncertainty as to whether specific clinical factors can identify men at increased risk, we sought to develop a prognostic index for risk of fracture in this population. Materials and methods We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify men who received ADT or RT after being diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2007–2009. Cox proportional hazards models tested the association of potential risk factors with fracture. In a derivation group, hazard ratios were used to assign points for factors independently related to fracture. The prognostic index was then applied to a validation group. Results The sample of 5824 men had a median age of 73.0 years; 82.9% were white and 8.6% had a fracture within 2 years of treatment for prostate cancer. The Cox model identified 8 variables (age, race, hormone treatment, Elixhauser score, anxiety, Parkinson's, fall-inducing medications and disability status) independently associated with fracture. In the derivation cohort, 4.3% of the sample experienced a fracture in the low-risk group, 8.9% in the intermediate group, and 19.2% in the high-risk group (C statistic, 0.749). The index was applied to the validation cohort (C statistic, 0.782). Conclusion The prognostic index can help to identify patients at increased risk for fracture. This underscores the importance of identifying risk factors for fracture, given the substantial variation in fracture risk in men treated with ADT or RT.

Objectives: To determine how well universal health outcome priorities represent individuals' preferences in specific clinical situations. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Community. Participants: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older (N = 357). Measurements: Participants used three tools assessing universal health outcome priorities related to two common trade-offs: quality versus quantity of life and future health versus present inconveniences and burdens of treatment. The tools' ability to identify participants who were unwilling to take a medication that reduced the risk of myocardial infarction but caused dizziness and fatigue was analyzed. Results: There were consistent and significant associations between unwillingness to take the medication and prioritizing quality of life or future health for all three tools in the expected direction (P < .05). Despite these associations, the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values for the tools were generally modest (0.49–0.83). The tool with the most specific statements resembling the medication scenario had the best specificity (0.97) and PPV (0.83). Conclusion: Universal health outcome priorities only modestly identified older persons who would be unwilling to take a medication for primary prevention of myocardial infarction that causes adverse effects. Although tools that are the most general in their assessment of priorities have the benefit of being applicable across the widest range of scenarios, tools with greater specificity may be necessary to inform individual treatment decisions.

Importance National injury surveillance systems use administrative data to collect information about severe fall-related trauma and mortality. Measuring milder injuries in ambulatory clinics would improve comprehensive outcomes measurement across the care spectrum. Objectives To assess a flexible set of administrative data–only algorithms for health systems to capture a greater breadth of injuries than traditional fall injury surveillance algorithms and to quantify the algorithm inclusiveness and validity associated with expanding to milder injuries. Design, Setting, and Participants In this longitudinal diagnostic study of 13 939 older adults (≥65 years) in the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study, a survey was conducted every 2 years and was linked to hospital, emergency department, postacute skilled nursing home, and outpatient Medicare claims (2000-2012). During each 2-year observation period, participants were considered to have sustained a fall-related injury (FRI) based on a composite reference standard of having either an external cause of injury (E-code) or confirmation by the Health and Retirement Study patient interview. A framework involving 3 algorithms withInternational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revisioncodes that extend FRI identification with administrative data beyond the use of fall-related E-codes was developed: an acute care algorithm (head and face or limb, neck, and trunk injury reported at the hospital or emergency department), a balanced algorithm (all acute care algorithm injuries plus severe nonemergency outpatient injuries), and an inclusive algorithm (almost all injuries). Data were collected from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2012, and statistical analysis was performed from August 1, 2016, to March 1, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Validity, measured as the proportion of potential FRI diagnoses confirmed by the reference standard, and inclusiveness, measured as the proportion of reference-standard FRIs captured by the potential FRI diagnoses. Results Of 13 939 participants, 1672 (42.4%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 77.56 (7.63) years. Among 50 310 observation periods, 9270 potential FRI diagnoses (18.4%) were identified; these were tested against 8621 reference-standard FRIs (17.1%). Compared with the commonly used method of E-coded–only FRIs (2-year incidence, 8.8% [95% CI, 8.6%-9.1%]; inclusion of 51.5% [95% CI, 50.4%-52.5%] of the reference-standard FRIs), FRI inclusion was increased with use of the study framework of algorithms. With the acute care algorithm (2-year incidence, 12.6% [95% CI, 12.4%-12.9%]), validity was prioritized (88.6% [95% CI, 87.4%-89.8%]) over inclusiveness (62.1% [95% CI, 61.1%-63.1%]). The balanced algorithm showed a 2-year incidence of 14.6% (95% CI, 14.3%-14.9%), inclusion of 65.3% (95% CI, 64.3%-66.3%), and validity of 83.2% (95% CI, 81.9%-84.6%). With the inclusive algorithm, the number of potential FRIs increased compared with the E-code–only method (2-year incidence, 17.4% [95% CI, 17.1%-17.8%]; inclusion, 68.4% [95% CI, 67.4%-69.3%]; validity, 75.2% [95% CI, 73.7%-76.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance The findings suggest that use of algorithms withInternational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revisioncodes may increase inclusion of FRIs by health care systems compared with E-codes and that these algorithms may be used by health systems to evaluate interventions and quality improvement efforts.