Improving measurement of functional status among older adults in primary care: A pilot study.

Despite its importance for clinical care and outcomes among older adults, functional status-the ability to perform basic activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs)-is seldom routinely measured in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to pilot test a person-centered, interprofessional intervention to improve identification and management of functional impairment among older adults in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care practices. The four-component intervention included (1) an interprofessional educational session; (2) routine, standardized functional status measurement among patients aged ≥75; (3) annual screening by nurses using a standardized instrument and follow-up assessment by primary care providers; and (4) electronic tools and templates to facilitate increased identification and improved management of functional impairment. Surveys, semi-structured interviews, and electronic health record data were used to measure implementation outcomes (appropriateness, acceptability and satisfaction, feasibility, fidelity, adoption/reach, sustainability). We analyzed qualitative interviews using rapid qualitative analysis. During the study period, all 959 eligible patients were screened (100% reach), of whom 7.3% (n = 58) reported difficulty or needing help with ≥1 ADL and 11.8% (n = 113) reported difficulty or needing help with ≥1 IADL. In a chart review among a subset of 50 patients with functional impairment, 78% percent of clinician notes for the visit when screening was completed had content related to function, and 48% of patients had referrals ordered to address impairments (e.g., physical therapy) within 1 week. Clinicians highly rated the quality of the educational session and reported increased ability to measure and communicate about function. Clinicians and patients reported that the intervention was appropriate, acceptable, and feasible to complete, even during the COVID pandemic. These findings suggest that this intervention is a promising approach to improve identification and management of functional impairment for older patients in primary care. Broader implementation and evaluation of this intervention is currently underway.

Using multiple qualitative methods to inform intervention development: Improving functional status measurement for older veterans in primary care settings.

Functional status, or the ability to perform activities of daily living, is central to older adults' health and quality of life. However, health systems have been slow to incorporate routine measurement of function into patient care. We used multiple qualitative methods to develop a patient-centered, interprofessional intervention to improve measurement of functional status for older veterans in primary care settings. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients, clinicians, and operations staff (n = 123) from 7 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Medical Centers. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to measuring function. We used concepts from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science and sociotechnical analysis to inform rapid qualitative analyses and a hybrid deductive/inductive approach to thematic analysis. We mapped qualitative findings to intervention components. Barriers to measurement included time pressures, cumbersome electronic tools, and the perception that measurement would not be used to improve patient care. Facilitators included a strong interprofessional environment and flexible workflows. Findings informed the development of five intervention components, including (1) an interprofessional educational session; (2) routine, standardized functional status measurement among older patients; (3) annual screening by nurses using a standardized instrument and follow-up assessment by primary care providers; (4) electronic tools and templates to facilitate increased identification and improved management of functional impairment; and (5) tailored reports on functional status for clinicians and operations leaders. These findings show how qualitative methods can be used to develop interventions that are more responsive to real-world contexts, increasing the chances of successful implementation. Using a conceptually-grounded approach to intervention development has the potential to improve patient and clinician experience with measuring function in primary care.

Can markers of disease severity improve the predictive power of claims-based multimorbidity indices?

BACKGROUND: Claims-based measures of multimorbidity, which evaluate the presence of a defined list of diseases, are limited in their ability to predict future outcomes. We evaluated whether claims-based markers of disease severity could improve assessments of multimorbid burden. METHODS: We developed 7 dichotomous markers of disease severity which could be applied to a range of diseases using claims data. These markers were based on the number of disease-associated outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations made by an individual over a defined interval; whether an individual with a given disease had outpatient visits to a specialist who typically treats that disease; and ICD-9 codes which connote more versus less advanced or symptomatic manifestations of a disease. Using Medicare claims linked with Health and Retirement Study data, we tested whether including these markers improved ability to predict ADL decline, IADL decline, hospitalization, and death compared to equivalent models which only included the presence or absence of diseases. RESULTS: Of 5012 subjects, median age was 76 years and 58% were female. For a majority of diseases tested individually, adding each of the 7 severity markers yielded minimal increase in c-statistic (≤0.002) for outcomes of ADL decline and mortality compared to models considering only the presence versus absence of disease. Gains in predictive power were more substantial for a small number of individual diseases. Inclusion of the most promising marker in multi-disease multimorbidity indices yielded minimal gains in c-statistics (<0.001-0.007) for predicting ADL decline, IADL decline, hospitalization, and death compared to indices without these markers. CONCLUSIONS: Claims-based markers of disease severity did not contribute meaningfully to the ability of multimorbidity indices to predict ADL decline, mortality, and other important outcomes.

Development and validation of novel multimorbidity indices for older adults.

BACKGROUND: Measuring multimorbidity in claims data is used for risk adjustment and identifying populations at high risk for adverse events. Multimorbidity indices such as Charlson and Elixhauser scores have important limitations. We sought to create a better method of measuring multimorbidity using claims data by incorporating geriatric conditions, markers of disease severity, and disease-disease interactions, and by tailoring measures to different outcomes. METHODS: Health conditions were assessed using Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims from subjects age 67 and older in the Health and Retirement Study. Separate indices were developed for ADL decline, IADL decline, hospitalization, and death, each over 2 years of follow-up. We validated these indices using data from Medicare claims linked to the National Health and Aging Trends Study. RESULTS: The development cohort included 5012 subjects with median age 76 years; 58% were female. Claims-based markers of disease severity and disease-disease interactions yielded minimal gains in predictive power and were not included in the final indices. In the validation cohort, after adjusting for age and sex, c-statistics for the new multimorbidity indices were 0.72 for ADL decline, 0.69 for IADL decline, 0.72 for hospitalization, and 0.77 for death. These c-statistics were 0.02-0.03 higher than c-statistics from Charlson and Elixhauser indices for predicting ADL decline, IADL decline, and hospitalization, and <0.01 higher for death (p < 0.05 for each outcome except death), and were similar to those from the CMS-HCC model. On decision curve analysis, the new indices provided minimal benefit compared with legacy approaches. C-statistics for both new and legacy indices varied substantially across derivation and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: A new series of claims-based multimorbidity measures were modestly better at predicting hospitalization and functional decline than several legacy indices, and no better at predicting death. There may be limited opportunity in claims data to measure multimorbidity better than older methods.

Intensification of Diabetes Medications at Hospital Discharge and Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults in the Veterans Administration Health System.

Importance: Transient elevations of blood glucose levels are common in hospitalized older adults with diabetes and may lead clinicians to discharge patients with more intensive diabetes medications than they were using before hospitalization. Objective: To investigate outcomes associated with intensification of outpatient diabetes medications at discharge. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed patients 65 years and older with diabetes not taking insulin who were hospitalized in the Veterans Health Administration Health System between January 1, 2011, and September 28, 2016, for common medical conditions. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Exposure: Discharge with intensified diabetes medications, defined as filling a prescription at hospital discharge for a new or higher-dose medication than was being used before hospitalization. Propensity scores were used to construct a matched cohort of patients who did and did not receive diabetes medication intensifications. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes of severe hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia were assessed at 30 and 365 days using competing risk regressions. Secondary outcomes included all-cause readmissions, mortality, change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, and persistent use of intensified medications at 1 year after discharge. Results: The propensity-matched cohort included 5296 older adults with diabetes (mean [SD] age, 73.7 [7.7] years; 5212 [98.4%] male; and 867 [16.4%] Black, 47 [0.9%] Hispanic, 4138 [78.1%] White), equally split between those who did and did not receive diabetes medication intensifications at hospital discharge. Within 30 days, patients who received medication intensifications had a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.10-4.28), no difference in risk of severe hyperglycemia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.33-3.08), and a lower risk of death (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.92). At 1 year, no differences were found in the risk of severe hypoglycemia events, severe hyperglycemia events, or death and no difference in change in HbA1c level was found among those who did vs did not receive intensifications (mean postdischarge HbA1c, 7.72% vs 7.70%; difference-in-differences, 0.02%; 95% CI, -0.12% to 0.16%). At 1 year, 48.0% (591 of 1231) of new oral diabetes medications and 38.5% (548 of 1423) of new insulin prescriptions filled at discharge were no longer being filled. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national cohort study, among older adults hospitalized for common medical conditions, discharge with intensified diabetes medications was associated with an increased short-term risk of severe hypoglycemia events but was not associated with reduced severe hyperglycemia events or improve HbA1c control. These findings indicate that short-term hospitalization may not be an effective time to intervene in long-term diabetes management.