Comfort Feeding Only: A Proposal to Bring Clarity to Decision-Making Regarding Difficulty with Eating for Persons with Advanced Dementia

Feeding and eating difficulties leading to weight loss are common in the advanced stages of dementia. When such problems arise, family members are often faced with making a decision regarding the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. The existing evidence based on observational studies suggests that feeding tubes do not improve survival or reduce the risk of aspiration, yet the use of feeding tubes is prevalent in patients with dementia, and the majority of nursing home residents do not have orders documenting their wishes about the use of artificial hydration and nutrition. One reason is that orders to forgo artificial hydration and nutrition get wrongly interpreted as “do not feed,” resulting in a reluctance of families to agree to them. Furthermore, nursing homes fear regulatory scrutiny of weight loss and wrongly believe that the use of feeding tubes signifies that everything possible is being done. These challenges might be overcome with the creation of clear language that stresses the patient's goals of care. A new order, “comfort feeding only,” that states what steps are to be taken to ensure the patient's comfort through an individualized feeding care plan, is proposed. Comfort feeding only through careful hand feeding, if possible, offers a clear goal-oriented alternative to tube feeding and eliminates the apparent care-no care dichotomy imposed by current orders to forgo artificial hydration and nutrition

Results From a Survey of American Geriatrics Society Members’ Views on Physician‐Assisted Suicide

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152741/1/jgs16245_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152741/2/jgs16245-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152741/3/jgs16245.pd

Exploring the intersection of structural racism and ageism in healthcare

The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) has consistently advocated for a healthcare system that meets the needs of older adults, including addressing impacts of ageism in healthcare. The intersection of structural racism and ageism compounds the disadvantage experienced by historically marginalized communities. Structural racism and ageism have long been ingrained in all aspects of US society, including healthcare. This intersection exacerbates disparities in social determinants of health, including poor access to healthcare and poor outcomes. These deeply rooted societal injustices have been brought to the forefront of the collective public consciousness at different points throughout history. The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare and exacerbated existing inequities inflicted on historically marginalized communities. Ageist rhetoric and policies during the COVID-19 pandemic further marginalized older adults. Although the detrimental impact of structural racism on health has been well-documented in the literature, generative research on the intersection of structural racism and ageism is limited. The AGS is working to identify and dismantle the healthcare structures that create and perpetuate these combined injustices and, in so doing, create a more just US healthcare system. This paper is intended to provide an overview of important frameworks and guide future efforts to both identify and eliminate bias within healthcare delivery systems and health professions training with a particular focus on the intersection of structural racism and ageism

Validation of a Geriatric Trauma Prognosis Calculator: A P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. Consortium Study

Background/objectives: The P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. (prognostic assessment of life and limitations after trauma in the elderly) consortium has previously created a prognosis calculator for mortality after geriatric injury based on age, injury severity, and transfusion requirement called the geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS). Here, we sought to create and validate a prognosis calculator called the geriatric trauma outcome score ii (GTOS II) estimating probability of unfavorable discharge. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers. Participants: Trauma admissions aged 65 to 102 years surviving to discharge from 2000 to 2013. Intervention: None. Measurements: Age, injury severity score (ISS), transfusion at 24 hours post-admission, discharge dichotomized as favorable (home/rehabilitation) or unfavorable (skilled nursing/long term acute care/hospice). Training and testing samples were created using the holdout method. A multiple logistic mixed model (GTOS II) was created to estimate the odds of unfavorable disposition then re-specified using the GTOS II as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model using the testing sample. Results: The final dataset was 16,114 subjects (unfavorable discharge status = 15.4%). Training (n = 8,057) and testing (n = 8,057) samples had similar demographics. The formula based on the training sample was (GTOS II = Age + [0.71 × ISS] + 8.79 [if transfused by 24 hours]). Misclassification rate and AUC were 15.63% and 0.67 for the training sample, respectively, and 15.85% and 0.67 for the testing sample. Conclusion: GTOS II estimates the probability of unfavorable discharge in injured elders with moderate accuracy. With the GTOS mortality calculator, it can help in goal setting conversations after geriatric injury