Implementing goals of care conversations with veterans in VA long-term care setting: a mixed methods protocol

Abstract Background The program “Implementing Goals of Care Conversations with Veterans in VA LTC Settings” is proposed in partnership with the US Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Center for Ethics in Health Care and the Geriatrics and Extended Care Program Offices, together with the VA Office of Nursing Services. The three projects in this program are designed to support a new system-wide mandate requiring providers to conduct and systematically record conversations with veterans about their preferences for care, particularly life-sustaining treatments. These treatments include cardiac resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and other forms of life support. However, veteran preferences for care go beyond whether or not they receive life-sustaining treatments to include issues such as whether or not they want to be hospitalized if they are acutely ill, and what kinds of comfort care they would like to receive. Methods Three projects, all focused on improving the provision of veteran-centered care, are proposed. The projects will be conducted in Community Living Centers (VA-owned nursing homes) and VA Home-Based Primary Care programs in five regional networks in the Veterans Health Administration. In all the projects, we will use data from context and barrier and facilitator assessments to design feedback reports for staff to help them understand how well they are meeting the requirement to have conversations with veterans about their preferences and to document them appropriately. We will also use learning collaboratives—meetings in which staff teams come together and problem-solve issues they encounter in how to get veterans’ preferences expressed and documented, and acted on—to support action planning to improve performance. Discussion We will use data over time to track implementation success, measured as the proportions of veterans in Community Living Centers (CLCs) and Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) who have a documented goals of care conversation soon after admission. We will work with our operational partners to spread approaches that work throughout the Veterans Health Administration.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134645/1/13012_2016_Article_497.pd

Correction to: Implementing goals of care conversations with veterans in VA long-term care setting: a mixed methods protocol

Correction The authors would like to correct errors in the original article [1] that may have lead readers to misinterpret the scope, evidence base and target population of VHA Handbook 1004.03 “Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions: Eliciting, Documenting, and Honoring Patients’ Values, Goals, and Preferences”.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142349/1/13012_2018_Article_724.pd

Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadImportance: Surgical treatment comparisons in rare diseases are difficult secondary to the geographic distribution of patients. Fortunately, emerging technologies offer promise to reduce these barriers for research. Objective: To prospectively compare the outcomes of the 3 most common surgical approaches for idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS), a rare airway disease. Design, setting, and participants: In this international, prospective, 3-year multicenter cohort study, 810 patients with untreated, newly diagnosed, or previously treated iSGS were enrolled after undergoing a surgical procedure (endoscopic dilation [ED], endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy [ERMT], or cricotracheal resection [CTR]). Patients were recruited from clinician practices in the North American Airway Collaborative and an online iSGS community on Facebook. Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was days from initial surgical procedure to recurrent surgical procedure. Secondary end points included quality of life using the Clinical COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Questionnaire (CCQ), Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), Eating Assessment Test-10 (EAT-10), the 12-Item Short-Form Version 2 (SF-12v2), and postoperative complications. Results: Of 810 patients in this cohort, 798 (98.5%) were female and 787 (97.2%) were white, with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range, 43-58 years). Index surgical procedures were ED (n = 603; 74.4%), ERMT (n = 121; 14.9%), and CTR (n = 86; 10.6%). Overall, 185 patients (22.8%) had a recurrent surgical procedure during the 3-year study, but recurrence differed by modality (CTR, 1 patient [1.2%]; ERMT, 15 [12.4%]; and ED, 169 [28.0%]). Weighted, propensity score-matched, Cox proportional hazards regression models showed ED was inferior to ERMT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% CI, 1.8-5.5). Among successfully treated patients without recurrence, those treated with CTR had the best CCQ (0.75 points) and SF-12v2 (54 points) scores and worst VHI-10 score (13 points) 360 days after enrollment as well as the greatest perioperative risk. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of 810 patients with iSGS, endoscopic dilation, the most popular surgical approach for iSGS, was associated with a higher recurrence rate compared with other procedures. Cricotracheal resection offered the most durable results but showed the greatest perioperative risk and the worst long-term voice outcomes. Endoscopic resection with medical therapy was associated with better disease control compared with ED and had minimal association with vocal function. These results may be used to inform individual patient treatment decision-making.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - PCOR

The effects of ramipril on sympathetic nervous system function in older patients with hypertension

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109895/1/cptclpt1999387.pd

A Multimedia Intervention on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Advance Directives

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74528/1/j.1525-1497.1999.11208.x.pd