Search

Minority older adults face multiple barriers when trying to access mental health services and often present with more severe symptoms of mental health conditions. We describe the multilevel factors that contributed to the engagement of an Asian immigrant older adult with depression. Systems-level innovations such as collaborative care in primary care can increase access to care for all, including minority older adults; however, one size fits all interventions may not meet the needs of communities of older adults with different life experiences, language needs, norms and values regarding help-seeking for mental health. Health outcomes remain unequal , suggesting the need to tailor interventions for minority older adults. For the patient, specific factors related to language and ethnic concordance between patient and healthcare provider, communication behaviors, ethnic identity, and social norms may be important to take into account. The recognition of the heterogeneity of patients and the limitations of cultural competence approaches defined as broad, general knowledge about ethnic cultures may be needed. A need to learn continuously from clinical experience and adopt a patient-oriented model of communication and decision-making may successfully engage Asian immigrant older adults in depression care services.

Background Despite increasing attention to patient and family advisory councils (PFACs), what patients who are not PFAC members expect of PFACs remains understudied. Understanding their expectations is critical if PFACs are to help health systems achieve certain outcomes (eg increased patient satisfaction with health systems). Objective To obtain rich insights about what patients who are not PFAC members expect of PFACs. Design From July to September 2018, we conducted a qualitative study using focus groups. Setting and participants We recruited patients and caregivers who receive their care from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Alliance for Patients (JMAP), LLC, a Medicare accountable care organization that in 2014 established a PFAC, the Beneficiary Advisory Council. Approach Using grounded theory, we analysed field notes, analytic memos and transcripts to develop a theoretical model of patient engagement via PFACs. Results Forty-two patients and caregivers participated in five focus groups that included individuals of different ages, races, health statuses and socio-economic statuses. Participants were largely unaware of PFACs. Participants wanted to know who represented them (interpreted as a form of political representation) and emphasized the need for representatives' diversity. Who mattered because who could affect what PFACs do. Participants expected that all patients should be able to communicate with PFACs and that meaningful engagement could enhance perceptions of health systems. Conclusions Eliciting views about patient representation from patients who have not been engaged as advisors or representatives has the potential to inform PFACs' activities. Attention should be given to improving and measuring patients' awareness of, and interactions with, their patient representatives.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), like other care entities, must be strategic about which initiatives they support in the quest for higher value. This article reviews the current strategic planning process for the Johns Hopkins Medicine Alliance for Patients (JMAP), a Medicare Shared Savings Program Track 1 ACO. It reviews the 3 focus areas for the 2017 strategic review process - (1) optimizing care coordination for complex, at-risk patients, (2) post-acute care, and (3) specialty care integration - reviewing cost savings and quality improvement opportunities, associated best practices from the literature, and opportunities to leverage and advance existing ACO and health system efforts in each area. It then reviews the ultimate selection of priorities for the coming year and early thoughts on implementation. After the robust review process, key stakeholders voted to select interventions targeted at care coordination, post-acute care, and specialty integration including Part B drug and imaging costs. The interventions selected incorporate a mixture of enhancing current ACO initiatives, working collaboratively and synergistically on other health system initiatives, and taking on new projects deemed targeted, cost-effective, and manageable in scope. The annual strategic review has been an essential and iterative process based on performance data and informed by the collective experience of other organizations. The process allows for an evidence-based strategic plan for the ACO in pursuit of the best care for patients.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Health systems increasingly engage with patient representatives on their governance boards or with patient and family advisory councils to improve care delivery. Little is known about how general patients regard those engagement activities. The objective of this study was to assess the importance of patient representation. We mailed a survey to 31,687 Medicare beneficiaries attributed to a Medicare accountable care organization. We examined relationships between respondents' views and their health characteristics and performed thematic analysis on free-text responses. Among 3,061 respondents, the majority believed that having a patient representative (74.1%) or a patient council (74.0%) mattered "some" or "a lot." The main factors respondents considered in answering were that "patients deserve a voice" (64%) and "having a patient on the [governance] board increases my trust" in this organization (46%). Our analysis of free-text responses illuminated why patient representatives are important, keys to successful engagement, and reasons behind the skepticism. This study indicates that most patients believe representation in health system governance is important, and that realizing its potential requires engagement activities that improve general patients' awareness of, and interaction with, their representatives.

Background This paper describes a protocol for determining the incidence of serious fall injuries for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with limited resources for event adjudication. We describe how administrative data (from participating health systems and Medicare claims) can be used to confirm participant-reported events, with more time- and resource-intensive full-text medical record data used only on an “as-needed” basis. Methods STRIDE is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 5451 participants age ≥ 70 and at increased risk for falls, served by 86 primary care practices in 10 US health systems. The STRIDE intervention involves a nurse falls care manager who assesses a participant’s underlying risks for falls, suggests interventions using motivational interviewing, and then creates, implements and longitudinally follows up on an individualized care plan with the participant (and caregiver when appropriate), in partnership with the participant’s primary care provider. STRIDE’s primary outcome is serious fall injuries, defined as a fall resulting in: (1) medical attention billable according to Medicare guidelines with a) fracture (excluding isolated thoracic vertebral and/or lumbar vertebral fracture), b) joint dislocation, or c) cut requiring closure; OR (2) overnight hospitalization with a) head injury, b) sprain or strain, c) bruising or swelling, or d) other injury determined to be “serious” (i.e., burn, rhabdomyolysis, or internal injury). Two sources of data are required to confirm a serious fall injury. The primary data source is the participant’s self-report of a fall leading to medical attention, identified during telephone interview every 4 months, with the confirmatory source being (1) administrative data capturing encounters at the participating health systems or Medicare claims and/or (2) the full text of medical records requested only as needed. Discussion Adjudication is ongoing, with over 1000 potentially qualifying events adjudicated to date. Administrative data can be successfully used for adjudication, as part of a hybrid approach that retrieves full-text medical records only when needed. With the continued refinement and availability of administrative data sources, future studies may be able to use administrative data completely in lieu of medical record review to maximize the quality of adjudication with finite resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02475850). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40621-019-0190-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Importance Clinical practice recommendations increasingly advocate that older patients’ life expectancy be considered to inform a number of clinical decisions. It is not clear how primary care practitioners approach these recommendations in their clinical practice. Objective To explore the range of perspectives from primary care practitioners on long-term prognosis, defined as prognosis regarding life expectancy in the range of years, in their care of older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants A qualitative, semistructured interview study was conducted in a large group practice with multiple sites in rural, urban, and suburban settings. Twenty-eight primary care practitioners were interviewed; 20 of these participants (71%) reported that at least 25% of their patient panel was older adults. The audiorecorded discussions were transcribed and analyzed, using qualitative content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. The study was conducted between January 30 and May 13, 2015. Data analysis was performed between June 10 and September 1, 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures The constant comparative approach was used to qualitatively analyze the content of the transcripts. Results Of the 28 participants, 16 were women and 21 were white; the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (10.3) years. Twenty-six were physicians and 2 were nurse practitioners. Their time since completing clinical training was 16.0 (11.4) years. These primary care practitioners reported considering life expectancy, often in the range of 5 to 10 years, in several clinical scenarios in the care of older adults, but balanced the prognosis consideration against various other factors in decision making. In particular, patient age was found to modulate how prognosis affects the primary care practitioners’ decision making, with significant reluctance among them to cease preventive care that has a long lag time to achieve benefit in younger patients despite limited life expectancy. The participants assessed life expectancy based on clinical experience rather than using validated tools and varied widely in their prognostication time frame, from 2 years to 30 years. Participants often considered prognosis without explicitly discussing it with patients and disagreed on whether and when long-term prognosis needs to be specifically discussed. The participants identified numerous barriers to incorporating prognosis in the care of older adults including uncertainty in predicting prognosis, difficulty in discussing prognosis, and concern about patient reactions. Conclusions and Relevance Despite clinical recommendations to increasingly incorporate patients’ long-term prognosis in clinical decisions, primary care practitioners encounter several barriers and ambiguities in the implementation of these recommendations.