Susan L Mitchell1, Jennifer A Palmer2, Angelo E Volandes3, Laura C Hanson4, Daniel Habtemariam5, Michele L Shaffer6. 1. Hebrew SeniorLife, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: smitchell@hsl.harvard.edu. 2. Hebrew SeniorLife, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 5. Hebrew SeniorLife, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington and Children's Core for Biomedical Statistics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Delivering goal-directed care is a hallmark of high-quality palliative care, but requires an understanding of preferences. OBJECTIVES: To describe and identify factors associated with level of care preferences among proxies of nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia. METHODS:NH residents with advanced dementia and their proxies (N = 402 dyads) were recruited from 62 Boston-area facilities as part of an ongoing randomized clinical trial. At baseline, all proxies were asked to select which level of care they felt the resident should receive: intensive, basic, or comfort care. Multivariable logistic regression identified resident and proxy factors associated with a preference for comfort care (vs. basic or intensive medical care). RESULTS: Proxy level of care preferences were: comfort, 62.2%; basic, 31.1%; and intensive medical care, 6.5%. In multivariable analyses, proxy perception that the resident had less than six months to live was most strongly associated with a preference for comfort-focused care (adjusted odds ratio 12.25, 95% CI 4.04-37.08). Additional factors significantly associated with a preference for comfort care included older resident age, worse resident cognitive impairment, and the proxy having been asked about goals of care preferences by a NH health care provider (adjusted odds ratio 1.71, 95% CI 1.07, 2.74). CONCLUSION: Most proxies select comfort as the preferred level of care for NH residents with advanced dementia. Discussions regarding prognosis, as well as inquiry about goals of care, are modifiable factors that may promote a preference for comfort care in this population.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Delivering goal-directed care is a hallmark of high-quality palliative care, but requires an understanding of preferences. OBJECTIVES: To describe and identify factors associated with level of care preferences among proxies of nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia. METHODS: NH residents with advanced dementia and their proxies (N = 402 dyads) were recruited from 62 Boston-area facilities as part of an ongoing randomized clinical trial. At baseline, all proxies were asked to select which level of care they felt the resident should receive: intensive, basic, or comfort care. Multivariable logistic regression identified resident and proxy factors associated with a preference for comfort care (vs. basic or intensive medical care). RESULTS: Proxy level of care preferences were: comfort, 62.2%; basic, 31.1%; and intensive medical care, 6.5%. In multivariable analyses, proxy perception that the resident had less than six months to live was most strongly associated with a preference for comfort-focused care (adjusted odds ratio 12.25, 95% CI 4.04-37.08). Additional factors significantly associated with a preference for comfort care included older resident age, worse resident cognitive impairment, and the proxy having been asked about goals of care preferences by a NH health care provider (adjusted odds ratio 1.71, 95% CI 1.07, 2.74). CONCLUSION: Most proxies select comfort as the preferred level of care for NH residents with advanced dementia. Discussions regarding prognosis, as well as inquiry about goals of care, are modifiable factors that may promote a preference for comfort care in this population.
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Susan C Miller; Joan M Teno; Dan K Kiely; Roger B Davis; Michele L Shaffer Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Sheryl Zimmerman; Mi-Kyung Song; Feng-Chang Lin; Cherie Rosemond; Timothy S Carey; Susan L Mitchell Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Michele L Shaffer; Mark B Loeb; Jane L Givens; Daniel Habtemariam; Dan K Kiely; Erika D'Agata Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: J C Weeks; E F Cook; S J O'Day; L M Peterson; N Wenger; D Reding; F E Harrell; P Kussin; N V Dawson; A F Connors; J Lynn; R S Phillips Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-06-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Joan M Teno; Dan K Kiely; Michele L Shaffer; Richard N Jones; Holly G Prigerson; Ladislav Volicer; Jane L Givens; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Michael J Barry; Muriel R Gillick; Kenneth L Minaker; Yuchiao Chang; E Francis Cook; Elmer D Abbo; Areej El-Jawahri; Susan L Mitchell Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-05-28
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Matthew Olean; Sarah D Berry; Yoojin Lee; Jennifer Tjia; Michael A Steinman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Timothy R Holden; Manish N Shah; Tommy A Gibson; Robert E Weiss; Annick N Yagapen; Susan E Malveau; David H Adler; Aveh Bastani; Christopher W Baugh; Jeffrey M Caterino; Carol L Clark; Deborah B Diercks; Judd E Hollander; Bret A Nicks; Daniel K Nishijima; Kirk A Stiffler; Alan B Storrow; Scott T Wilber; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Andrea J Loizeau; Michele L Shaffer; Daniel A Habtemariam; Laura C Hanson; Angelo E Volandes; Susan L Mitchell Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Andrea J Loizeau; Nathan Theill; Simon M Cohen; Stefanie Eicher; Susan L Mitchell; Silvio Meier; Michelle McDowell; Mike Martin; Florian Riese Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Stephanie M Peterson; James M Naessens; Rozalina G Mccoy; Gregory J Hanson; Latonya J Hickson; Christina Yy Chen; Parvez A Rahman; Nilay D Shah; Lynn Borkenhagen; Anupam Chandra; Rachel Havyer; Aaron Leppin; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Andrea Jutta Loizeau; Simon M Cohen; Susan L Mitchell; Nathan Theill; Stefanie Eicher; Mike Martin; Florian Riese Journal: Neurodegener Dis Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 2.977
Authors: Amber E Barnato; John D Birkmeyer; Jonathan S Skinner; A James O'Malley; Nancy J O Birkmeyer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mairead M Bartley; Laura Suarez; Reem M A Shafi; Joshua M Baruth; Amanda J M Benarroch; Maria I Lapid Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 5.285