Goals and outcomes of hospitalised older people:does the current hospital care match the needs of older people?

Background Due to the rising number of acutely hospitalised older people in the coming years, there is increased interest in tailoring care to the individual goals and preferences of patients in order to reach patient-centred care. Aims To investigate the goals of older hospitalised patients and the extent to which these goals were reached during hospitalisation. Methods A single-centre prospective cohort study was performed in The Netherlands between December 2017 and January 2018. Participants aged 70 years or older were included. In the first 3 days of hospitalisation, a semi-structured interview was conducted to assess the patient goals regarding the hospital admission. At 1-2 weeks after discharge, patients were asked to what extent the recent hospitalisation had contributed to reaching their goals. Results One hundred and four patients were included and follow up was completed for 86 patients. The main goals reported at hospital admission were 'remaining alive' (72.1%), 'feeling better' (71.2%) and 'improving condition' (65.4%). Hospitalisation seemed to have a positive contribution to reaching the goals 'remaining alive', 'knowing what is wrong', 'feeling better', 'reducing pain' and 'controlling disease'. Hospitalisation seemed to contribute little to reaching the goals in the categories 'enjoying life', 'independency and freedom', 'improving daily functioning', 'hobbies and work' and 'social functioning'. Conclusions It is important for healthcare professionals to know the goals of their patients. The majority of these goals were not achieved at hospital discharge. It is important to be aware of this, so sufficient aftercare can be arranged and patients can be prepared

'What matters to you?':Health outcome prioritisation in treatment decision-making for older patients

BACKGROUND: for shared decision-making, it is important to discuss of the patients' priorities in order to align treatment decisions with these priorities. OBJECTIVE: to assess the most important health outcome for older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision, using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT). Secondary objectives were the feasibility of the OPT and patient variables associated with prioritising different health outcomes. DESIGN: retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: at the University Medical Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands, 350 patients were included who visited the geriatric outpatient clinic during the work-up regarding a complex treatment decision (such as cancer treatment or heart valve replacement). METHODS: during geriatric assessment, patients prioritised between four health outcomes, using the OPT. RESULTS: median age was 78.5 years, 172 (49.1%) were referred regarding a treatment decision for a malignant disease. Cognitive impairment was present in 23.6%. Most patients (55.2%) prioritised maintaining independence as their most important goal, followed by extending life in 21.1%. Only cognitive impairment was significantly associated with prioritising extending life as the most important health outcome. For 107 patients (30.6%), the OPT was not feasible; these patients more often had malnutrition and assisted living. CONCLUSIONS: the main health outcome of older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision was maintaining independence, followed by extending life. Patients with cognitive impairment more often prioritised extending life. The OPT was feasible as a decision aid for most patients. For optimal shared decision-making, it is crucial to take patient preferences into account

Selecting the right treatment:Health outcome priorities in older patients with bladder cancer

Introduction: Selecting the appropriate treatment for older patients with non-muscle invasive (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is challenging due to smoking-related comorbidities, treatment toxicity, and an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Considering patient preferences prior to treatment is therefore crucial. Here, we aimed to identify the health outcome priorities of older patients with high-risk NMIBC (HR-NMIBC) or MIBC. Materials and Methods: Patients aged 70 years or older or at risk for frailty, diagnosed with HR-NMIBC or MIBC without distant metastases, were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). The CGA consisted of an interview, physical examination, and several tests to examine physical, cognitive, functional, and social status. Quality of life was assessed using EQ5D and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Health outcome priorities were discussed using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and associations between health outcome priorities and CGA-determinants and quality of life were studied. Results: Of 146 patients (14 HR-NMIBC, 132 MIBC), OPT data was available for 139. Life extension was most often prioritized (44%), closely followed by preserving independence (40%). Reducing pain (7%) and other symptoms (9%) were less often prioritized. Patients prioritizing life extension had fewer musculoskeletal problems than patients prioritizing reducing pain or other symptoms (p = 0.02). Patients at risk of or suffering from malnutrition more frequently selected reducing pain or other symptoms as their health outcome priority (p = 0.004). For all other CGA-determinants and quality of life, there were no significant differences between groups based on health outcome priorities. Discussion: In older patients with HR-NMIBC and MIBC, life extension and preserving independence are the most common health outcomes priorities. CGA-determinants and quality of life are generally not associated with the prioritization of health outcomes. As health outcome priorities cannot be predicted by CGA-determinants or quality of life, it is crucial to discuss health outcome priorities with patients to promote shared decision-making.</p

Was it worth it? Benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation from a patient's perspective:Benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation from a patient's perspective

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an important treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. To improve patient selection, shared decision‐making is recommended to elicit patients' treatment expectations and goals. We assessed patients' expectations and goals before TAVI treatment and whether these were met after treatment. Additionally, we evaluated how meeting these goals aligned with quality of life and functional recovery. DESIGN: A mixed method study. SETTING: An academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy‐four patients undergoing TAVI between 2015 and 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' expectations and goals were assessed qualitatively before treatment. Six to twelve months post procedure, quality of life was measured with the EuroQuol‐5D and any change in the number of dependencies in (instrumental) activities of daily living was assessed. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 81.5 years, and 37.8% were male. Regaining the ability to engage in a specific hobby or activity was the most important treatment goal (33 patients, 54.1%), followed by reducing symptoms (19 patients 31.1%). 66.2% of patients stated that their treatment goal was met. Quality of life was higher in this group, as compared with patients who had not met their treatment goal. Twenty‐three patients (31.1%) showed functional improvement. CONCLUSION: TAVI patients were quite capable of eliciting treatment goals and a majority stated, after treatment, that these had been met patients' experience of treatment benefits regarding these goals had poor alignment with functional outcomes. This raises questions regarding relevant outcome measurements in this population, and could aid in improving shared decision‐making and patient selection for TAVI

Impact of Delay on Hospitalization in Older Patients With Head and Neck Cancer:A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of delay in treatment initiation on hospitalization, overall survival, and recurrence in older patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter study. SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers. METHODS: All patients with newly diagnosed HNC (≥60 years) treated between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Time-to-treatment intervals were assessed (ie, calendar days between first visit and start of treatment). Multiple multivariable models were performed with hospital admission days (>14 days), survival, and recurrence as dependent outcome variables. RESULTS: In total, 525 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 70.7 years and 70.7% were male. Median time to treatment was 34.0 days, and 36.3% started treatment within 30 days (P = .576 between centers). Patients with radiotherapy had longer time to treatment than surgical patients (39.0 vs 29.0 days, P 14 days) in the first year after treatment in an adjusted model (odds ratio, 4.66 [95% CI, 2.59-8.37]; P < .001). Delay in treatment initiation was not associated with overall survival or tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance and challenges of ensuring timely treatment initiation in older patients with HNC, as treatment delay was an independent predictor of hospitalization. During oncologic workup, taking time to consider patient-centered outcomes (including minimizing time spent in hospital) while ensuring timely start of treatment requires well-structured, fast-track care pathways

Head and neck cancer patients with geriatric deficits are more often non-responders and lost from follow-up in quality of life studies

OBJECTIVES: To identify associations between frailty and non-response to follow-up questionnaires, in a longitudinal head and neck cancer (HNC) study with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred with HNC were included in OncoLifeS, a prospective data-biobank, underwent Geriatric Assessment (GA) and frailty screening ahead of treatment, and were followed up at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Head and Neck 35. Statistical analysis for factors associated with non-response was done using Generalized Linear Mixed Models.RESULTS: 289 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean age was 68.4 years and 68.5% were male. Restrictions in Activities of Daily Living [OR 4.46 (2.04-9.78)] and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [OR 4.33 (2.27-8.24)], impaired mobility on Timed Up and Go test [OR 3.95 (1.85-8.45)], cognitive decline [OR 4.85 (2.28-10.35)] and assisted living (OR 5.54 (2.63-11.67)] were significantly associated with non-response. Frailty screening, with Geriatric 8 and Groningen Frailty Indicator, was also associated with non-response [OR, respectively, 2.64 (1.51-4.59) and 2.52 (1.44-4.44)]. All findings remained significant when adjusted for other factors that were significantly associated with non-response, such as higher age, longer study duration and subsequent death.CONCLUSION: Frail HNC patients respond significantly worse to follow-up PROMs. The drop-out and underrepresentation of frail patients in studies may lead to attrition bias, and as a result underestimating the effect sizes of associations. This is of importance when handling and interpreting such data.</p

Perioperative telemonitoring of older adults with cancer:Can we connect them all?

OBJECTIVES: Although the increasing cancer incidence in older patients is widely recognised, older patients remain underrepresented in clinical cancer trials and eHealth studies. The aim of this research is to identify technological and patient-related barriers to inclusion of this population in a clinical eHealth study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study with older patients (≥ 65 years) undergoing cancer-related surgery, who were identified for a perioperative telemonitoring study. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal had been prospectively registered. Characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared between participants and non-participants. RESULTS: Between May 2018 and March 2020, 151 patients were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 65 participants and 86 non-participants. The main reason for ineligibility was lack of internet access at home (n = 16), while main reasons for refusal were perceived high mental burden (n = 46) and insufficient digital skills (n = 12). Compared with participants, non-participants were significantly older (mean age 75 vs. 73, p = 0.01); more often female (64% vs. 35%, p = 0.00), unmarried (42% vs. 8%, p = 0.01) living alone (38% vs. 19%, p = 0.02); had a higher ASA classification (43% vs. 19%, p = 0.00); often had polypharmacy (67% vs. 43%, p = 0.00); and were more often discharged to skilled nursing facilities (0% vs. 15%, p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the underrepresentation of older female patients with little support from a partner and higher comorbidity. We should be aware of technological and patient-related barriers to including older adults with cancer, in order to avoid further dividing patients with low and high digital health literacy

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient:A Systematic Review

SIMPLE SUMMARY: In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient. ABSTRACT: For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions