Literature DB >> 32389606

Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients-Prevalence and Associated Factors.

Matthew E Modes1, Susan R Heckbert2, Ruth A Engelberg3, Elizabeth L Nielsen3, J Randall Curtis4, Erin K Kross3.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Goal-concordant care is an important indicator of high-quality care in serious illness.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care among seriously ill outpatients and identify factors associated with the absence of patient-reported goal concordance.
METHODS: Analysis of enrollment surveys from a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness. Patients reported their prioritized health care goal and the focus of their current medical care; these items were matched to define receipt of goal-concordant care.
RESULTS: Of 405 patients with a prioritized health care goal, 58% reported receipt of goal-concordant care, 17% goal-discordant care, and 25% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patient-reported receipt of goal concordance differed by patient goal. For patients who prioritized extending life, 86% reported goal-concordant care, 2% goal-discordant care, and 12% were uncertain of the focus of their care. For patients who prioritized relief of pain and discomfort, 51% reported goal-concordant care, 21% goal-discordant care, and 28% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patients who prioritized a goal of relief of pain and discomfort were more likely to report goal-discordant care than patients who prioritized a goal of extending life (relative risk ratio 22.20; 95% CI 4.59, 107.38).
CONCLUSION: Seriously ill outpatients who prioritize a goal of relief of pain and discomfort are less likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who prioritize extending life. Future interventions designed to improve receipt of goal-concordant care should focus on identifying patients who prioritize relief of pain and discomfort and promoting care aligned with that goal.
Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Goal-concordant care; advance care planning; end-of-life; goals; goals-of-care; palliative care; preferences; serious illness; values

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32389606      PMCID: PMC7508896          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  54 in total

1.  Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Eric A Finkelstein; Marcel Bilger; Terry N Flynn; Chetna Malhotra
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults.

Authors:  Matthew E Modes; Ruth A Engelberg; Lois Downey; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Robert Y Lee; J Randall Curtis; Erin K Kross
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  How Often Is End-of-Life Care in the United States Inconsistent with Patients' Goals of Care?

Authors:  Nita Khandelwal; J Randall Curtis; Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Pedro Gozalo; Ruth A Engelberg; Joan M Teno
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.947

4.  Physician understanding of patient resuscitation preferences: insights and clinical implications.

Authors:  N S Wenger; R S Phillips; J M Teno; R K Oye; N V Dawson; H Liu; R Califf; P Layde; R Hakim; J Lynn
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  The quality of patient-doctor communication about end-of-life care: a study of patients with advanced AIDS and their primary care clinicians.

Authors:  J R Curtis; D L Patrick; E Caldwell; H Greenlee; A C Collier
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  1999-06-18       Impact factor: 4.177

Review 6.  Identifying, recruiting, and retaining seriously-ill patients and their caregivers in longitudinal research.

Authors:  Karen E Steinhauser; Elizabeth C Clipp; Judith C Hays; Maren Olsen; Robert Arnold; Nicholas A Christakis; Jennifer Hoff Lindquist; James A Tulsky
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.762

7.  Life-sustaining treatment preferences: matches and mismatches between patients' preferences and clinicians' perceptions.

Authors:  Lois Downey; David H Au; J Randall Curtis; Ruth A Engelberg
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  Medical care inconsistent with patients' treatment goals: association with 1-year Medicare resource use and survival.

Authors:  Joan M Teno; Elliott S Fisher; Mary Beth Hamel; Kristen Coppola; Neal V Dawson
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Patient knowledge and physician predictions of treatment preferences after discussion of advance directives.

Authors:  G S Fischer; J A Tulsky; M R Rose; L A Siminoff; R M Arnold
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care.

Authors:  Terry N Flynn; Marcel Bilger; Chetna Malhotra; Eric A Finkelstein
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.981

View more
  1 in total

1.  Seriously Ill Patients' Prioritized Goals and Their Clinicians' Perceptions of Those Goals.

Authors:  Matthew E Modes; Ruth A Engelberg; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Lyndia C Brumback; Thanh H Neville; Anne M Walling; J Randall Curtis; Erin K Kross
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 5.576

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.