Search

ContextLittle is known about advance care planning (ACP) among community-dwelling patients with dementia.ObjectivesTo describe aspects of ACP among patients with dementia and examine the association between ACP and health care proxy (HCP) acceptance of patients' illness.MethodsCross-sectional observational survey of 62 HCPs of patients with dementia (N = 14 mild, N = 48 moderate/severe), from seven outpatient geriatric and memory disorder clinics in Boston. Aspects of ACP included HCP's report of patients' preferences for level of future care, communication with HCP and physician regarding care preferences, and proxy preparedness for shared decision making. The association between ACP and HCP acceptance with patients' illness was examined using the Peace, Equanimity, and Acceptance subscale of the Cancer Experience Scale.ResultsEleven percent of proxies believed that the patient would want life-prolonging treatment, 31% a time-limited trial of curative treatment, and 47% comfort-focused care. Thirty-one percent reported that the patient had communicated with their physician regarding preferences for care, and 77% had communicated with the HCP. Forty-four percent of HCPs wanted more discussion with the patient regarding care preferences. The HCP having discussed care preferences with the patient was associated with greater acceptance of the patient's illness (P = 0.004).ConclusionOur findings support need for greater ACP discussions between patients and proxies. Discussions regarding goals of care are likely to benefit patients through delivery of care congruent with their wishes and HCPs in terms of greater acceptance of patients' illness.

ObjectivesWe determined the impact of obtaining housing on geriatric conditions and acute care utilization among older homeless adults.MethodsWe conducted a 12-month prospective cohort study of 250 older homeless adults recruited from shelters in Boston, Massachusetts, between January and June 2010. We determined housing status at follow-up, determined number of emergency department visits and hospitalizations over 12 months, and examined 4 measures of geriatric conditions at baseline and 12 months. Using multivariable regression models, we evaluated the association between obtaining housing and our outcomes of interest.ResultsAt 12-month follow-up, 41% of participants had obtained housing. Compared with participants who remained homeless, those with housing had fewer depressive symptoms. Other measures of health status did not differ by housing status. Participants who obtained housing had a lower rate of acute care use, with an adjusted annualized rate of acute care visits of 2.5 per year among participants who obtained housing and 5.3 per year among participants who remained homeless.ConclusionsOlder homeless adults who obtained housing experienced improved depressive symptoms and reduced acute care utilization compared with those who remained homeless.

The article highlights the significance of deprescribing for achieving goal-concordant care in older adults living with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). Topics covered include the challenges that clinicians may face in integrating deprescribing into goal-concordant care for AD/ADRD, and emerging opportunities that can help address the challenges and align prescribing with patient goals and preferences.

Cluster randomized trials (CRT) of non‐pharmacological interventions are an important means of improving the quality of care and quality of life of people living with dementia (PLWD) in long‐term care (LTC) homes. PLWD in LTC homes are, however, vulnerable in manifold ways. Therefore, researchers require guidance to ensure that the rights and welfare of PLWD are protected in the course of this valuable research. In this article, we introduce a framework for identifying vulnerabilities in randomized trials and apply it to three CRTs involving PLWD in LTC homes. CRTs may render PLWD in LTC homes vulnerable to three autonomy wrongs: inadequately informed consent, inadequately voluntary consent, and invasions of privacy; two welfare wrongs: risks of therapeutic procedure exceed potential benefits, and excessive risk of non‐therapeutic procedures; and one justice wrong: unjust impact of research activities on care. We then discuss appropriate, feasible additional protections that can be implemented to mitigate vulnerability while preserving the scientific validity of the CRT. Corresponding additional protections that can be feasibly implemented include capacity assessments, substitute decision‐makers, assent, insulation from LTC home employees during the consent process, patient advocates, utilizing LTC home employees for data collection, stakeholder engagement, additional supervision during study procedures, using caregivers to complete questionnaires by proxy, and gatekeeper permission. Reassuringly, many of these additional protections promote, rather than imperil, the scientific validity of these trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]