Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jan 2;7(1):e2352666. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.52666.
Older adults with multiple conditions receive health care that may be burdensome, of uncertain benefit, and not focused on what matters to them. Identifying and aligning care with patients' health priorities may improve outcomes.
To assess the association of receiving patient priorities care (PPC) vs usual care (UC) with relevant clinical outcomes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity adjustment, enrollment occurred between August 21, 2020, and May 14, 2021, with follow-up continuing through February 26, 2022. Patients who were aged 65 years or older and with 3 or more chronic conditions were enrolled at 1 PPC and 1 UC site within the Cleveland Clinic primary care multisite practice. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to August 2023.
Health professionals at the PPC site guided patients through identification of values, health outcome goals, health care preferences, and top priority (ie, health problem they most wanted to focus on because it impeded their health outcome goal). Primary clinicians followed PPC decisional strategies (eg, use patients' health priorities as focus of communication and decision-making) to decide with patients what care to stop, start, or continue.
Main outcomes included perceived treatment burden, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) social roles and activities, CollaboRATE survey scores, the number of nonhealthy days (based on healthy days at home), and shared prescribing decision quality measures. Follow-up was at 9 months for patient-reported outcomes and 365 days for nonhealthy days.
A total of 264 individuals participated, 129 in the PPC group (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.1] years; 66 women [48.9%]) and 135 in the UC group (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.5] years; 55 women [42.6%]). Characteristics between sites were balanced after propensity score weighting. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived treatment burden score between groups in multivariate models (difference, -5.2 points; 95% CI, -10.9 to -0.50 points; P = .07). PPC participants were almost 2.5 times more likely than UC participants to endorse shared prescribing decision-making (adjusted odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 6.40; P = .07), and participants in the PPC group experienced 4.6 fewer nonhealthy days (95% CI, -12.9 to -3.6 days; P = .27) compared with the UC participants. These differences were not statistically significant. CollaboRATE and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities scores were similar in the 2 groups at follow-up.
This nonrandomized trial of priorities-aligned care showed no benefit for social roles or CollaboRATE. While the findings for perceived treatment burden and shared prescribing decision-making were not statistically significant, point estimates for the findings suggested that PPC may hold promise for improving these outcomes. Randomized trials with larger samples are needed to determine the effectiveness of priorities-aligned care.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510948.
患有多种疾病的老年人所接受的医疗保健可能是负担过重的、不确定有益的,而且可能与他们的需求不相关。确定并调整护理与患者的健康重点一致,可能会改善结果。
评估接受患者优先护理 (PPC) 与常规护理 (UC) 与相关临床结果的关联。
设计、设置和参与者:在这项非随机对照试验中,进行了倾向评分调整,招募于 2020 年 8 月 21 日至 2021 年 5 月 14 日进行,随访持续到 2022 年 2 月 26 日。年龄在 65 岁及以上且患有 3 种或以上慢性病的患者在克利夫兰诊所多站点初级保健实践中的 1 个 PPC 和 1 个 UC 站点入组。数据分析于 2022 年 3 月至 2023 年 8 月进行。
PPC 站点的卫生保健专业人员指导患者确定价值观、健康结果目标、医疗保健偏好和首要重点(即他们最希望关注的健康问题,因为它阻碍了他们的健康结果目标)。初级临床医生遵循 PPC 决策策略(例如,将患者的健康重点作为沟通和决策的焦点),与患者一起决定停止、开始或继续哪些护理。
主要结果包括感知治疗负担、患者报告的结局测量信息系统(PROMIS)社会角色和活动、CollaboRATE 调查评分、非健康天数(基于在家中的健康天数)和共同处方决策质量措施。患者报告的结果随访时间为 9 个月,非健康天数的随访时间为 365 天。
共有 264 人参与,129 人在 PPC 组(平均[标准差]年龄,75.3[6.1]岁;66 名女性[48.9%]),135 人在 UC 组(平均[标准差]年龄,75.6[6.5]岁;55 名女性[42.6%])。在进行倾向评分加权后,站点间的特征平衡。在随访时,多元模型显示两组之间在感知治疗负担评分方面没有统计学显著差异(差异,-5.2 分;95%置信区间,-10.9 至-0.50 分;P = .07)。与 UC 参与者相比,PPC 参与者更有可能认同共同处方决策(调整后的优势比,2.40;95%置信区间,0.90 至 6.40;P = .07),并且 PPC 组参与者的非健康天数减少了 4.6 天(95%置信区间,-12.9 至-3.6 天;P = .27)。这些差异没有统计学意义。在随访时,两组的 CollaboRATE 和 PROMIS 社会角色和活动评分相似。
这项关于重点一致的护理的非随机试验表明,在社会角色或 CollaboRATE 方面没有获益。虽然感知治疗负担和共同处方决策制定的发现没有统计学意义,但这些发现的点估计表明,PPC 可能有改善这些结果的潜力。需要更大样本量的随机试验来确定重点一致的护理的有效性。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04510948。