Background

The unique needs of homebound adults receiving home-based medical care (HBMC) (ie, home-based primary care and home-based palliative care services) are ideally provided by interdisciplinary care teams (IDTs) that provide coordinated care. The composition of team members from an array of organizations and the unique dimension of providing care in the home present specific challenges to timely access and communication of patient care information. The objective of this work was to develop a conceptual framework and corresponding quality indicators (QIs) that assess how IDT members for HBMC practices access and communicate key patient information with each other.

Methods

A systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature was performed to inform a framework for care coordination in the home and the development of candidate QIs to assess processes by which all IDT members optimally access and use patient information. A technical expert panel (TEP) participated in a modified Delphi process to assess the validity and feasibility of each QI and to identify which would be most suitable for testing in the field.

Results

Thematic analysis of literature revealed 4 process themes for how HBMC practices might engage in high-quality care coordination: using electronic medical records, conducting interdisciplinary team meetings, sharing standardized patient assessments, and communicating via secure e-messaging. Based on these themes, 9 candidate QIs were developed to reflect these processes. Three candidate QIs were assessed by the TEP as valid and feasible to measure in an HBMC practice setting. These indicators focused on use of IDT meetings, standardized patient assessments, and secure e-messaging.

Conclusion

Translating the complex issue of care coordination into QIs will improve care delivered to vulnerable home-limited adults who receive HBMC. Guided by the literature, we developed a framework to reflect optimal care coordination in the home setting and identified 3 candidate QIs to field-test in HBMC practices.

More than 6 million adults in the United States are homebound or semi-homebound and would benefit from home-based medical care (HBMC). There is currently no nationally recognized quality of care framework for home-based medical care. We sought to capture diverse stakeholder perspectives on the essential aspects of quality HBMC and create a quality of care framework for homebound adults. A qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews from purposive sampling of key HBMC stakeholders was performed. Leaders from 12 exemplar HBMC practices (clinicians and administrators), advocacy groups (American Association of Retired Persons, National Partnership for Women and Families, Kaiser Family Foundation), and representatives from 3 key professional medical societies associated with HBMC participated in phone interviews. Semistructured interviews were based on domains of quality developed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. We identified 3 categories of quality HBMC: provider and practice activities; provider characteristics; and outcomes for patients, caregivers, and providers. Within these 3 categories, we identified 10 domains and 49 standards for quality HBMC. These included 3 new domains (comprehensive assessment, patient/caregiver education, and provider competency) as well as specification and adaptation of the NQF Framework for Multiple Chronic Conditions domains for HBMC. Notably, several quality domains emanating from the NQF Framework for Multiple Chronic Conditions (transitions, access, and patient/caregiver engagement) were applicable to HBMC. This quality of care framework serves as a guide for HBMC practices seeking to improve their care quality and as a starting point for health systems and payers to ensure value from HBMC practices with whom they work.

Background

Many older adults with multiple chronic conditions, particularly those who are functionally impaired, spend considerable time juggling the competing demands of managing their conditions often assisted by caregivers. We examined methods of assessing the treatment burden experienced by this population as a first step to identifying strategies to reduce it.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed of the peer-reviewed and grey-literature (PubMed, Cochrane library, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Review, NLM catalog and ProQuest Digital Theses and Dissertations). After title and abstract screening, both qualitative and quantitative articles describing approaches to assessment of treatment burden were included.

Results

Forty-five articles from the peer reviewed and three items from the grey literature were identified. Most articles (34/48) discussed treatment burden associated with a specific condition. All but one examined the treatment burden experienced by patients and six addressed the treatment burden experienced by caregivers. Qualitative studies revealed many aspects of treatment burden including the burdens of understanding the condition, juggling, monitoring and adjusting treatments, efforts to engage with others for support as well as financial and time burdens. Many tools to assess treatment burden in different populations were identified through the qualitative data. The most commonly used instrument was the Treatment Burden Questionnaire.

Conclusions

Many instruments are available to assess treatment burden, but no one standardized assessment method was identified. Few articles examined approaches to measuring the treatment burden experienced by caregivers. As people live longer with more chronic conditions healthcare providers need to identify patients and caregivers burdened by treatment and engage in approaches to ameliorate treatment burden. A standard and validated assessment method to measure treatment burden in the clinical setting would help to enhance the care of people with multiple chronic conditions, allow comparison of different approaches to reducing treatment burden, and foster ongoing evaluation and monitoring of burden across conditions, patient populations, and time.

Background: Multimorbidity and pain are both common among older adults, yet pain treatment strategies for older patients with multimorbidity have not been well characterized. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and relationship between multimorbidity and opioid prescribing in hospitalized older medical patients with pain. Methods: We collected demographic, morbidity, pain, and analgesic treatment data through structured review of the electronic medical records of a consecutive sample of 238 medical patients, aged ≥65 years admitted between November 2014 and May 2015 with moderate-to-severe pain by numerical pain rating scale (range 4-10). We used the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) to assess multimorbidity and cumulative illness burden. We examined the relationship between morbidity measures and opioid prescribing at hospital discharge using multivariate regression analysis. Results: The mean age was 75 ± 8 years, 57% were female and 50% were non-White. Mean CIRS-G total score was 17 ± 6, indicating high cumulative illness burden. Ninety-nine percent of patients had multimorbidity, defined as moderate-to-extremely severe morbidity in ≥2 organ systems. Sixty percent of patients received an opioid prescription at discharge. In multivariate analyses adjusted for age, race, and gender, patients with a discharge opioid prescription were significantly more likely to have higher cumulative illness burden and chronic pain. Conclusion: Among older medical inpatients, multimorbidity was nearly universal, and patients with higher cumulative illness burden were more likely to receive a discharge opioid prescription. More studies of benefits and harms of analgesic treatments in older adults with multimorbidity are needed to guide clinical practice.

Background and objectives

Homebound older adults and their caregivers have not historically been engaged as advisors in patient-centered outcomes research. This study aimed to understand the attitudes of homebound older adults and their caregivers toward research and participation as research advisors.

Research design and methods

Descriptive thematic analysis of semistructured interviews conducted with 30 homebound older adults and caregivers recruited from home-based medical care practices. Interview questions addressed opinions on research and preferences for engaging as research advisors.

Results

Of 30 participants, 22 were female, 17 were people of color, and 11 had Medicaid. Two themes emerged related to perceptions of research overall: (a) utility of research and (b) relevance of research. Overall, participants reported positive attitudes toward research and felt that research could affect people like them. Three themes emerged related to participating as research advisors: (a) motivators, (b) barriers, and (c) preferences. Participants were open to engaging in a variety of activities as research advisors. Most participants were motivated by helping others. Common barriers included time constraints and caregiving responsibilities, and physical barriers for homebound individuals. Participants also reported fears such as lacking the skills or expertise to contribute as advisors. Many were willing to participate if these barriers were accommodated and shared their communication preferences.

Discussion and implications

Diverse homebound older adults and caregivers are willing to be engaged as research advisors and provided information to inform future engagement strategies. Findings can inform efforts to meet new age-inclusive requirements of the National Institutes of Health.

More than 7.3 million older adults in the United States have difficulty leaving their homes or are completely homebound, yet little data exist on the experiences of homebound older adults and their caregivers. We conducted 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews with homebound older adults and caregivers recruited through home-based medical care practices in Baltimore and San Francisco. Thematic template analyses revealed that homebound older adults experience varying degrees of independence in activities of daily living, although their degree of dependence increases over time. Caregivers have a multifaceted, round-the-clock role. Both patients and caregivers experience burdens including social isolation and guilt. Navigating medical care and caregiving was further complicated by the complexity of the U.S. health care system; however, home-based medical care was viewed as a high-quality alternative to hospitals or nursing homes. Our findings suggest that providers and health care systems should expand the availability and accessibility of home-based care and improve caregiver support opportunities.

Homebound older adults have not had a voice in establishing a research agenda relevant to their needs and perspectives. We engaged homebound older adults receiving home-based primary care and caregivers to serve as stakeholder advisors to develop a patient- and caregiver-centered research agenda for home-based care. Over 9 months, we facilitated eight tablet-enabled videoconference meetings. We oriented advisors to patient-centered outcome research and research question development. Advisors developed and prioritized a list of 14 research domains and 127 associated research questions. The top three prioritized research domains in descending rank order (number of associated research questions) were out-of-pocket costs of caregiving (10), access to home-based care and related policy issues (19), and relationship with doctors (15). This research agenda can guide researchers' efforts to focus on areas of importance to the ultimate end users of their research.

Introduction

The Geriatric Resources for the Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) program has been shown to decrease acute care utilization and increase patient self-rated health in low-income seniors at community-based health centers.

Aims

To describe adaptation of the GRACE model to include adults of all ages (named Care Support) and to evaluate the process and impact of Care Support implementation at an urban academic medical center.

Setting

152 high-risk patients (≥5 ED visits or ≥2 hospitalizations in the past 12 months) enrolled from four medical clinics from 4/29/2013 to 5/31/2014.

Program description

Patients received a comprehensive in-home assessment by a nurse practitioner/social worker (NP/SW) team, who then met with a larger interdisciplinary team to develop an individualized care plan. In consultation with the primary care team, standardized care protocols were activated to address relevant key issues as needed.

Program evaluation

A process evaluation based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research identified key adaptations of the original model, which included streamlining of standardized protocols, augmenting mental health interventions and performing some assessments in the clinic. A summative evaluation found a significant decline in the median number of ED visits (5.5 to 0, p = 0.015) and hospitalizations (5.5 to 0, p<0.001) 6 months before enrollment in Care Support compared to 6 months after enrollment. In addition, the percent of patients reporting better self-rated health increased from 31% at enrollment to 64% at 9 months (p = 0.002). Semi-structured interviews with Care Support team members identified patients with multiple, complex conditions; little community support; and mild anxiety as those who appeared to benefit the most from the program.

Discussion

It was feasible to implement GRACE/Care Support at an academic medical center by making adaptations based on local needs. Care Support patients experienced significant reductions in acute care utilization and significant improvements in self-rated health.