Sarah H M Robben1, Maud M Heinen2, Marieke Perry1, Theo van Achterberg2, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert1, Henk J Schers3, René J F Melis1. 1. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2. Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Primary and Community Care, Centre for Family Medicine, Geriatric Care and Public Health, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a two-step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it. METHODS: The method consisted of (i) an open-ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven community-dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well-being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals. CONCLUSIONS: This two-step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making.
BACKGROUND: Although frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a two-step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it. METHODS: The method consisted of (i) an open-ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven community-dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well-being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals. CONCLUSIONS: This two-step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making.
Authors: Simon J Griffin; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Marijcke W M Veltman; Susan Gillard; Julie Grant; Moira Stewart Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sarah H M Robben; Marieke Perry; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Maud M Heinen; René J F Melis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Margaret Handley; Kate MacGregor; Dean Schillinger; Claire Sharifi; Sharon Wong; Thomas Bodenheimer Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Lisa Kouladjian O'Donnell; Mouna Sawan; Emily Reeve; Danijela Gnjidic; Timothy F Chen; Patrick J Kelly; J Simon Bell; Sarah N Hilmer Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: W Rietkerk; D L Gerritsen; B J Kollen; C S Hofman; K Wynia; Jpj Slaets; S U Zuidema Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Tessa S Schoot; Namiko A Goto; Rob J van Marum; Luuk B Hilbrands; Angèle P M Kerckhoffs Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 2.266