Publications

IMPORTANCE: The accuracy of mortality assessment by emergency clinicians is unknown and may affect subsequent medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of the question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" (known as the surprise question) asked of emergency clinicians with actual 1-month mortality among undifferentiated older adults who visited the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study at a single academic medical center in Portland, Maine, included consecutive patients 65 years or older who received care in the ED and were subsequently admitted to the hospital from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015. Data analyses were conducted from January 2018 to March 2019.

EXPOSURES: Treating emergency clinicians were required to answer the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" in the electronic medical record when placing a bed request for all patients who were being admitted to the hospital.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month, assessed from the National Death Index. The secondary outcomes included accuracies of responses by both emergency clinicians and admitting internal medicine clinicians to the surprise question in identifying older patients with high 6-month and 12-month mortality.

RESULTS: The full cohort included 10 737 older adults (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [8.8] years; 5532 [52%] women; 10 157 [94.6%] white) in 16 223 visits treated in the ED and admitted to the hospital. There were 5132 patients (31.6%) with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or more. Mortality rates were 8.3% at 1 month, 17.2% at 6 months, and 22.5% at 12 months. Emergency clinicians stated that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next month for 2104 patients (19.6%). In multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, race, admission diagnosis, and comorbid conditions, the odds of death at 1 month were higher in patients for whom clinicians answered that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month compared with patients for whom clinicians answered that they would be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month (odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.2-2.7]; P < .001). However, the diagnostic test characteristics of the surprise question were poor (sensitivity, 20%; specificity, 93%; positive predictive value, 43%; negative predictive value, 82%; accuracy, 78%; area under the receiver operating curve of the multivariable model, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.72-0.74; P < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that asking the surprise question of emergency clinicians may be a valuable tool to identify older patients in the ED with a high risk of 1-month mortality. The effect of implementing the surprise question to improve population-level health care for older adults in the ED who are seriously ill remains to be seen.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed a pamphlet decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years. However, implementing DAs in primary care may be challenging and may require support from non-physician healthcare team members.

OBJECTIVE: To learn from primary care administrators, nurses, and staff their thoughts on how best to implement a mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years in practice.

DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing in-person individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two non-physician healthcare team members (69.6% of those approached) participated from 8 different primary care practices (community and academic) in the Boston area or in Chapel Hill, NC.

APPROACH: Participants were asked to provide feedback on the DA, their thoughts on ways to make the DA available to older women, and factors that would make it easier and/or harder to implement.

KEY RESULTS: Participants felt the DA was clear, balanced, and understandable, but felt that it needed to be shorter for women with low health literacy. Most participants felt that as long as use of the DA was approved and supported by clinicians that women ≥ 75 years should receive the DA before a visit from staff (usually medical assistants) so that patients could ask their clinicians questions during the visit. Facilitators of DA use included its perceived helpfulness with decision-making, its format, and that existing systems (panel management, electronic medical record alerts) could be accessed to get the DA to patients especially at Medicare Annual Wellness visits. Participants perceived a need for training, albeit minimal, to provide the DA to patients. Barriers of DA use included competing demands on clinician and staff time.

CONCLUSIONS: Participants felt that as long as use of the mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years was supported by clinicians, it would be feasible to implement with minimal refinements to existing healthcare system processes.

BACKGROUND: Identification of older adults with serious illness (life expectancy less than one year) who may benefit from serious illness conversations or other palliative care interventions in the emergency department (ED) is difficult.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the "surprise question (SQ)" asked of emergency physicians to predict 12-month mortality.

DESIGN: We asked attending emergency physician "Would you be surprised whether this patient died in the next 12 months?" regarding patients ≥65 years old that they had cared for that shift. We prospectively obtained death records from Massachusetts Department of Health Vital Records.

SETTING: An urban, university-affiliated ED.

MEASUREMENT: Twelve-month mortality.

RESULTS: We approached 38 physicians to answer the SQ, and 86% participated. The mean age of our cohort was 76 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one serious illness. Out of 207 patients, the physicians stated that they "would not be surprised" if the patient died in the next 12 months for 102 of the patients (49%); 44 of the 207 patients (21%) died within 12 months. The SQ demonstrated sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 32%, and negative predictive value of 90%. When combined with other predictors, the model sorted the patient who lived from the patient who died correctly 72% of the time (c-statistic = 0.72).

CONCLUSION: Use of the SQ by emergency physicians may predict 12-month mortality in older ED patients and may help emergency physicians identify older adults in need of palliative care interventions.

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill older adults in the emergency department (ED) may benefit from palliative care referral, yet little is known about how to identify these patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance and determine the acceptability of a content-validated palliative care screening tool.

DESIGN: We surveyed Emergency Medicine (EM) attending physicians at the end of their shifts using the screening tool and asked them to retrospectively apply it to all patients ≥65 years whom they had cared for. We conducted the survey for three consecutive weeks in October 2015.

SETTING/SUBJECTS: EM attending physicians at an urban, university-affiliated ED.

MEASUREMENT: Patient characteristics, acceptability rating, and time per patient screened.

RESULTS: We approached 38 attending physicians to apply the screening tool for 69 eligible shifts. Physicians agreed to participate during 55 shifts (80%) and screened 207 patients. On 14 shifts (20%), physicians declined to participate. Mean age of the screened patients was 75 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one life-limiting illness. Overall, 67 patients (32%) screened positive for palliative care needs. Seventy percent of physicians (n = 33) found the screening tool acceptable to use and the average time of completion was 1.8 minutes per patient screened.

CONCLUSION: A rapid screen of older adults for palliative care needs was acceptable to a majority of EM physicians and identified a significant number of patients who may benefit from palliative care referral. Further research is needed to improve acceptability and determine the appropriate care pathway for patients with palliative care needs.

Early detection through screening can reduce mortality rates of cervical cancer, and yet Hispanic women who have incidence rates higher than their non-Hispanic White counterparts are least likely to participate in cancer screening initiatives. This study utilized data from the 2008 wave of the Health and Retirement Study to investigate the psychosocial correlates associated with older Hispanic women's participation in cervical cancer screening services. Logistic regression models were used. Findings indicated that greater life satisfaction and religiosity were associated with a greater likelihood of participating in cervical cancer screening. Despite ongoing national conversations, evidence indicates there is agreement that underserved women need to be screened, particularly the older Hispanic population.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality in older adults after non-traumatic emergency department (ED) intubations.

METHODS: We used Vizient administrative data from hospitalizations of 22,374 adults ≥75 years who underwent non-traumatic ED intubation from 2008-2015 at nearly 300 U.S. hospitals to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality. We randomly selected one half of participants for the development cohort and one half for the validation cohort. Considering 25 potential predictors, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We calculated risk scores using points derived from the final model's beta coefficients. To evaluate calibration and discrimination of the final model, we used Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis and compared mortality by risk groups in the development and validation cohorts.

RESULTS: Death during the index hospitalization occurred in 40% of cases. The final model included six variables: history of myocardial infarction, history of cerebrovascular disease, history of metastatic cancer, age, admission diagnosis of sepsis, and admission diagnosis of stroke/ intracranial hemorrhage. Those with low-risk scores (<6) had 31% risk of in-hospital mortality while those with high-risk scores (>10) had 58% risk of in-hospital mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square of the model was 6.47 (p=0.09), and the c-statistic was 0.62 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION: The model may be useful in identifying older adults at high risk of death after ED intubation.

There are relatively limited data on outcomes of screening older adults for cancer; therefore, the decision to screen older adults requires balancing the potential harms of screening and follow-up diagnostic tests with the possibility of benefit. Harms of screening can be amplified in older and frail adults and include discomfort from undergoing the test itself, anxiety, potential complications from diagnostic procedures resulting from a false-positive test, false reassurance from a false-negative test, and overdiagnosis of tumors that are of no threat and may result in overtreatment. In this paper, we review the evidence and guidelines on breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer as applied to older adults. We also provide a general framework for approaching cancer screening in older adults by incorporating evidence-based guidelines, patient preferences, and patient life expectancy estimates into shared screening decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Extended validation of an index predicting mortality among community-dwelling US older adults.

DESIGN/SETTING: Examination of the performance of a previously developed index in predicting 10- and 14-year mortality among respondents to the 1997-2000 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) using the original development and validation cohorts. Follow-up mortality data are now available through 2011.

PARTICIPANTS: 16,063 respondents from the original development cohort and 8,027 respondents from the original validation cohort. All participants were community dwelling and ≥65 years old.

MEASUREMENTS: We calculated risk scores for each respondent based on the presence or absence of 11 factors (function, illnesses, behaviors, demographics) that make up the index. Using the Kaplan Meier method, we computed 10- and 14-year mortality estimates for the development and validation cohorts to examine model calibration. We examined model discrimination using the c-index.

RESULTS: Participants in the development and validation cohorts were similar. Participants with risk scores 0-4 had 23% risk of 14-year mortality whereas respondents with risk scores (13+) had 89% risk of 14-year mortality. The c-index of the model in both cohorts was 0.73 for predicting 10-year mortality and 0.72 for predicting 14-year mortality. Overall, 18.4% of adults 65-74 years and 60.2% of adults ≥75 years have >50% risk of mortality in 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS: Our index demonstrated excellent calibration and discrimination in predicting 10- and 14-year mortality among community-dwelling US adults ≥65 years. Information on long-term prognosis is needed to help clinicians and older adults make more informed person-centered medical decisions and to help older adults plan for the future.

Purpose The benefits of annual surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors with limited life expectancy are not known, and there are important risks; however, little is known about mammography use among these women. Materials and Methods We used National Health Interview Study data from 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 to examine surveillance mammography use among women age ≥ 65 years who reported a history of breast cancer. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the probability of mammography within the last 12 months by 5- and 10-year life expectancy (using the validated Schonberg index), adjusting for survey year, region, age, marital status, insurance, educational attainment, and indicators of access to care. Results Of 1,040 respondents, 33.7% were age ≥ 80 years and 88.6% were white. Approximately 8.6% and 35.1% had an estimated life expectancy of ≤ 5 and ≤ 10 years, respectively. Overall, 78.9% reported having routine surveillance mammography in the last 12 months. Receipt of mammography decreased with decreasing life expectancy ( P < .001), although 56.7% and 65.9% of those with estimated ≤ 5-year and ≤ 10-year life expectancy, respectively, reported mammography in the last year. Conversely, 14.1% of those with life expectancy > 10 years did not report mammography. In adjusted analyses, lower ( v higher) life expectancy was significantly associated with lower odds of mammography (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8 for ≤ 5-year life expectancy and OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.6 for ≤ 10-year life expectancy). Conclusion Many (57%) older breast cancer survivors with an estimated short life expectancy (< 5 years) receive annual surveillance mammography despite unknown benefits, whereas 14% with estimated life expectancy > 10 years did not report mammography. Practice guidelines are needed to optimize and tailor follow-up care for older patients.

Older adults are at highest risk of cancer and yet have the lowest rates of cancer screening participation. Older minority adults bear the burden of cancer screening disparities leading to late stage cancer diagnoses. This investigation, utilization data from the 2008 wave of the Health and Retirement study examined the cultural and emotional factors thought to influence cervical cancer screening among older Hispanic women. We utilized logistic regression models to conduct the analyses. Findings indicate that the emotional factors were not significant but the cultural factor, time orientation was a significant predictor for older Hispanics' cervical cancer screening behaviors.