Goal-based outcomes of hospitalisation of older adults are predicted by gender, confidence, quality of life and type of goals.

PURPOSE: Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) might reflect relevant outcomes from patient perspective, they do not always reflect what the individual patient finds important. Our objectives were to assess which PROM was best suited to evaluate patient-relevant outcomes of hospitalisation and to assess which factors predicted this PROM. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted among hospitalised older patients. Three PROMs were compared with the anchor question 'How much have you benefited from the admission?': a general quality of life measure: EQ-5D; a measure of daily functioning: Katz-15 and a goal-based measure: achievement of self-defined goals. Predictors were examined using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We had 185 cases with baseline and follow-up. Accomplishment of self-defined goals showed a large correlation with the anchor question, whereas EQ-5D and Katz-15 showed no significant correlations. The final regression model had four predictors: being man, having higher confidence in goal achievement and good/excellent quality of life increased the odds for goal accomplishment, while having goals in the category alleviating complaints reduced the odds. CONCLUSION: Accomplishment of individual goals represented the benefit experienced by participants best. Subjective indicators of health and functioning are better predictors of goal accomplishment than objective ones. According to participant experience, the hospital appeared successful in managing disease-specific problems, but less successful in ameliorating complaints. Medical decision-making should not only be based on medical indicators, but the input of the patient is at least as important. Quality of life, goals and confidence should be discussed. More attention is needed for symptom experience.

Outcomes as experienced by older patients after hospitalisation: satisfaction, acceptance, frustration and hope-a grounded theory study.

BACKGROUND: outcomes of hospitalisation are often described in quantitative terms. It is unknown how older frail patients describe their own outcomes. OBJECTIVE: to discover how older frail persons describe their own hospitalisation outcomes and the meaning of these outcomes for their daily lives. DESIGN: Constructivist Grounded Theory approach. PARTICIPANTS: frail older people discharged from hospital. METHODS: Open interviews in the participant's home. Transcripts were coded inductively according to the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted involving 20 unique participants. Although for some participants hospitalisation was just a ripple, for others, it was a turning point. It could have positive or negative impacts on outcomes, including remaining alive, disease, fatigue/condition, complaints, daily functioning, social activities and intimate relationships, hobbies, living situation and mental well-being. Few participants were completely satisfied, but for many, a discrepancy between expectation and reality existed. Some participants could accept this, others remained hopeful and some were frustrated. Factors associated with these categories were research and treatment options, (un)clarity about the situation, setting the bar too high or pushing boundaries, confidence in physicians, character traits and social factors. CONCLUSIONS: of the persons whose outcomes did not meet their expectations, some were frustrated, others hopeful and others accepted the situation. The following interventions can help patients to accept: clear communication about options and expectations before, during and after hospitalisation; giving room for emotions; help finding social support, encouragement to engage in pleasant activities and find meaning in small things. For some patients, psychological treatment may be needed.

Adaptation of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients: development, reliability and validity of the P-BAS picture version.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) is a tool developed to both identify the priorities of the individual patient and to measure the outcomes relevant to him/her, resulting in a Patient Benefit Index (PBI), indicating how much benefit the patient had experienced from the hospitalisation. The reliability and the validity of the P-BAS HOP appeared to be not yet satisfactory and therefore the aims of this study were to adapt the P-BAS HOP and transform it into a picture version, resulting in the P-BAS-P, and to evaluate its feasibility, reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability. METHODS: Process of instrument development and evaluation performed among hospitalised older patients including pilot tests using Three-Step Test-Interviews (TSTI), test-retest reliability on baseline and follow-up, comparing the PBI with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and hypothesis testing to evaluate the construct validity. Responsiveness of individual P-BAS-P scores and the PBI with two different weighing schemes were evaluated using anchor questions. Interpretability of the PBI was evaluated with the visual anchor-based minimal important change (MIC) distribution method and computation of smallest detectable change (SDC) based on ICC. RESULTS: Fourteen hospitalised older patients participated in TSTIs at baseline and 13 at follow-up after discharge. After several adaptations, the P-BAS-P appeared feasible with good interviewer's instructions. The pictures were considered relevant and helpful by the participants. Reliability was tested with 41 participants at baseline and 50 at follow-up. ICC between PBI1 and PBI2 of baseline test and retest was 0.76, respectively 0.73. At follow-up 0.86, respectively 0.85. For the construct validity, tested in 169 participants, hypotheses regarding importance of goals were confirmed. Regarding status of goals, only the follow-up status was confirmed, baseline and change were not. The responsiveness of the individual scores and PBI were weak, resulting in poor interpretability with many misclassifications. The SDC was larger than the MIC. CONCLUSIONS: The P-BAS-P appeared to be a feasible instrument, but there were methodological barriers for the evaluation of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness. We therefore recommend further research into the P-BAS-P.

Reliability and validity of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP).

BACKGROUND: The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) is a tool which is capable of both identifying the priorities of the individual patient and measuring the outcomes relevant to him/her, resulting in a Patient Benefit Index (PBI) with range 0-3, indicating how much benefit the patient had experienced from the admission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability of the P-BAS HOP. METHODS: A longitudinal study among hospitalised older patients with a baseline interview during hospitalisation and a follow-up by telephone 3 months after discharge. Test-retest reliability of the baseline and follow-up questionnaire were tested. Percentage of agreement, Cohen's kappa with quadratic weighting and maximum attainable kappa were calculated per item. The PBI was calculated for both test and retest of baseline and follow-up and compared with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was tested by evaluating pre-defined hypotheses comparing the priority of goals with experienced symptoms or limitations at admission and the achievement of goals with progression or deterioration of other constructs. Responsiveness was evaluated by correlating the PBI with the anchor question 'How much did you benefit from the admission?'. This question was also used to evaluate the interpretability of the PBI with the visual anchor-based minimal important change distribution method. RESULTS: Reliability was tested with 53 participants at baseline and 72 at follow-up. Mean weighted kappa of the baseline items was 0.38. ICC between PBI of the test and retest was 0.77. Mean weighted kappa of the follow-up items was 0.51. ICC between PBI of the test and retest was 0.62. For the construct validity, tested in 451 participants, all baseline hypotheses were confirmed. From the follow-up hypotheses, tested in 344 participants, five of seven were confirmed. The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the PBI and the anchor question was 0.51. The optimal cut-off point was 0.7 for 'no important benefit' and 1.4 points for 'important benefit' on the PBI. CONCLUSIONS: Although the concept seems promising, the reliability and validity of the P-BAS HOP appeared to be not yet satisfactory. We therefore recommend adapting the P-BAS HOP.

Development of a new tool for the assessment of patient-defined benefit in hospitalised older patients: the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP).

OBJECTIVES: To support the shift from disease-oriented towards goal-oriented care, we aimed to develop a tool which is capable both to identify priorities of an individual older hospitalised patient and to measure the outcomes relevant to him. DESIGN: Mixed-methods design with open interviews, three step test interviews (TSTIs) and a quantitative field test. SETTING: University teaching hospital and a regional teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised patients ages 70 years and older. RESULTS: The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) consists of a baseline questionnaire and an evaluation questionnaire. Items were based on 15 qualitative interviews with hospitalised older patients. Feedback from a panel of four community-dwelling older persons resulted in some adaptations to wording and one additional item. Twenty-six hospitalised older patients participated in TSTIs with Version 1 of the baseline questionnaire, revealing indications for a good content validity and barriers in completion behaviour, global understanding and understanding of individual items, which were solved with several adaptations. Four additions were made by participants. After TSTIs with ten patients with the evaluation questionnaire, one adaptation was made. A field test with 91 hospitalised older patients revealed a small number of missing values.To enhance the feasibility, the number of items was reduced from 32 to 22, based on correlations and mean impact score. The field test was repeated with 104 other patients in a regional teaching hospital. To enhance the understanding, the tool was split into two phases. This version was tested with TSTIs with eight patients and appeared to be understandable. The final version was an interview-based tool and took about 11 min to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The P-BAS HOP is a potentially suitable tool to identify priorities and relevant outcomes of the individual patient. Further research is needed to investigate its validity, reliability and responsiveness.

Goals of older hospitalised patients: a qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: Since the population continues ageing and the number of patients with multiple chronic diseases is rising in Western countries, a shift is recommended from disease oriented towards goal-oriented healthcare. As little is known about individual goals and preferences of older hospitalised patients, the aim of this study is to elucidate the goals of a diverse group of older hospitalised patients. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive method with open interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. SETTING: A university teaching hospital and a regional teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight hospitalised patients aged 70 years and older. RESULTS: Some older hospitalised patients initially had difficulties describing concrete goals, but after probing all were able to state more concrete goals. A great diversity of goals were categorised into wanting to know what the matter is, controlling disease, staying alive, improving condition, alleviating complaints, improving daily functioning, improving/maintaining social functioning, resuming work/hobbies and regaining/maintaining autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Older hospitalised patients have a diversity of goals in different domains. Discussing goals with older patients is not a common practice yet. Timely discussions about goals should be encouraged because individual goals are not self-evident and this discussion can guide decision making, especially in patients with multimorbidity and frailty. Aids can be helpful to facilitate the discussion about goals and evaluate the outcomes of hospitalisation.

The decision-making process for unplanned admission to hospital unveiled in hospitalised older adults: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The hazards of hospitalisation, and the growing demand for goal-oriented care and shared decision making, increasingly question whether hospitalisation always aligns with the preferences and needs of older adults. Although decision models are described comprehensively in the literature, little is understood about how the decision for hospitalisation is made in real life situations, especially under acute conditions. The aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into how the decision to hospitalise was made from the perspective of the older patient who was unplanned admitted to hospital. METHODS: Open interviews were conducted with 21 older hospitalised patients and/or their next of kin about the decision-making process leading to hospitalisation. Data were analysed according to the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Although a period of complaints preceded the decision to unplanned hospitalisation, ranging from hours to years, the decision to hospitalise was always taken acutely. In all cases, there was an acute moment in which the home as a care environment was no longer considered adequate. This conclusion was based on a combination of factors including factors related to complaints, general practitioner and home environment. Three parties were involved in this assessment: the patient, his next of kin and the general practitioner. At the same time, a very positive value was attributed towards the hospital. Depending on the assessment of the home as care environment by the various parties, there were four routes to hospitalisation: referral, shared, demanding and bypassing. CONCLUSIONS: For all participants, the decision to hospitalisation was taken acutely, even if the problems evoking admission were not acute, but present for a longer period. Participants saw admission as inevitable, due to the negative perceptions of the care environment at home at that moment, combined with the positive expectations of hospital care. Advance care planning, nor shared decision making were rarely seen in these interviews. An ethical dilemma occurred when the next of kin consented to hospitalisation against the wishes of the patient. More attention for participation of older adults in decision making and their goals is recommended.

Nurse-led clinics for patients with chronic diseases in hospital and transmural care organizations.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to elucidate the purpose, content, and organization of nurse-led clinics for patients with chronic diseases and to explore whether there are differences in the content and context of the nurse-led clinics and attention for the home situation between a transmural and a hospital setting. SETTINGS: Transmural setting by which nurses work in both primary and secondary care and hospital setting where nurses are employed by a local hospital. Within the transmural setting, 4 nurse-led clinics were studied: heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson disease, and multiple sclerosis. Within the hospital setting, 3 nurse-led clinics were studied: heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, and Parkinson disease. METHODS: A multiple-case embedded design was used to investigate the content and context of the nurse-led clinics for patients with heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson disease, and multiple sclerosis in the transmural and hospital setting. SAMPLE: One hundred twenty-one patient records, bimonthly telephone interviews with 218 patients, and face-to-face interviews with 7 nurses. RESULTS: Nurses focus on disease itself, treatment, and the everyday life of the patient. In addition, nurses maintain contacts with colleagues and other disciplines both inside and outside the hospital. No influence of setting was found on the execution of nurse-led clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led clinics for chronically ill patients focus on all aspects of living with a chronic disease. The organizational context does not seem to contribute to the execution of the nurse-led clinics. Instead, this seems to be driven by patient needs, the definition of nursing and nursing competencies, and general developments in the nursing profession. IMPLICATIONS: To improve nursing care for patients with chronic illnesses, changing the organizational context might not be useful.

Factors influencing attitudes of nurses in general health care toward patients with comorbid mental illness: an integrative literature review.

An estimated 40% of patients in general health care settings suffer from a comorbid mental illness. A literature review was conducted to elucidate the factors underlying the different attitudes of nurses in general health care toward the nursing care of these patients. Although lack of knowledge, skills, and additional training with respect to dealing with patients with comorbid mental illness were frequently mentioned as a cause of negative attitudes, their exact relationships remained unclear. A holistic nursing vision, support, and older age were described as having a positive influence on a positive attitude, and workload was described as having a negative influence.