Health care may be burdensome and of uncertain benefit for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Aligning health care with an individual's health priorities may improve outcomes and reduce burden.OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether patient priorities care (PPC) is associated with a perception of more goal-directed and less burdensome care compared with usual care (UC).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Nonrandomized clinical trial with propensity adjustment conducted at 1 PPC and 1 UC site of a Connecticut multisite primary care practice that provides care to almost 15% of the state's residents. Participants included 163 adults aged 65 years or older who had 3 or more chronic conditions cared for by 10 primary care practitioners (PCPs) trained in PPC and 203 similar patients who received UC from 7 PCPs not trained in PPC. Participant enrollment occurred between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018; follow-up extended for up to 9 months (ended September 30, 2018).INTERVENTIONS Patient priorities care, an approach to decision-making that includes patients' identifying their health priorities (ie, specific health outcome goals and health care preferences) and clinicians aligning their decision-making to achieve these health priorities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes included change in patients' OlderPatient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (O-PACIC), CollaboRATE, and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores; electronic health record documentation of decision-making based on patients' health priorities; medications and self-management tasks added or stopped; and diagnostic tests, referrals, and procedures ordered or avoided. RESULTSOf the 366 patients, 235 (64.2%) were female and 350 (95.6%) were white. Compared with the UC group, the PPC group was older (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.6] vs 77.6 [7.6] years) and had lower physical and mental health scores. At follow-up, PPC participants reported a 5-point greater decrease in TBQ score than those who received UC (ß [SE], -5.0 [2.04]; P = .01) using a weighted regression model with inverse probability of PCP assignment weights; no differences were seen in O-PACIC or CollaboRATE scores. Health priorities-based decisions were mentioned in clinical visit notes for 108 of 163 (66.3%) PPC vs 0 of 203 (0%) UC participants. Compared with UC patients, PPC patients were more likely to have medications stopped (weighted comparison, 52.0% vs 33.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.95) and less likely to have self-management tasks (57.5% vs 62.1%; AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84) and diagnostic tests (80.8% vs 86.4%; AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) ordered.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study's findings suggest that patient priorities care may be associated with reduced treatment burden and unwanted health care. Care aligned with patients' priorities may be feasible and effective for older adults with MCCs.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03600389

Background: Functional status (FS) before intensive care unit (ICU) admission is associated with short-term and long-term outcomes among critically ill patients. However, measures of FS are generally not integrated into ICU-specific mortality prediction models. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used prospectively collected data from 9638 consecutive patients admitted to a single ICU between 1 October 2005 and 30 September 2015. For each ICU admission, FS was prospectively determined and classified into three discrete categories based on performance of basic daily living activities (FS1 -fully independent; FS2 -partly dependent; FS3 -completely dependent). We prospectively calculated Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV predicted mortality percentage (APIV PM) for each admission and calculated observed-expected mortality ratios (OEMR), stratified by FS category and APIV PM. We calculated area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) for APIV PM and mortality for the entire cohort and the three FS categories. Results: Patients had a median (IQR) age of 67 (52-80) years and mean (SD) APIV PM was 18.3% (24.3%). Of these, 7714 (80.0%) were classified as FS1, 1728 (17.9%) as FS2 and 196 (2.0%) as FS3. FS1 patients were younger, had less comorbid disease, and lower APIV PM compared to FS2 and FS3. The OEMR were significantly lower for FS1 (0.67) than FS2 (0.93) or FS3 (0.90) (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Among patients with APIV PM 0-10%, 10-25%, 25-50% and ≥50% the OEMR for FS1 were 0.33, 0.49, 0.61 and 0.86. The AUC (95% CI) for APIV PM and mortality for FS1,, respectively (p < 0.001 for each comparison). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that FS2 (OR 2.18 (1.84-2.57) (p < 0.0001)) and FS3 ) (p = 0.0006)) were independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Conclusions: Baseline FS prior to critical illness is a strong independent predictor of mortality and impacts the relationship between observed and APIV PM in those with lower illness severity. Future iterations of mortality prediction models should integrate a baseline measure of FS to improve performance.

Objectives To determine the age‐related differences in the association between level of acculturation and perceptions about change in health status after migration in mid‐ to late‐life immigrants. Design Cross‐sectional study. Setting Nationally representative cohort of legal U.S. immigrants. Participants Legal immigrants ≥50 years of age. Measurements The outcome was perceived change in health status, determined by the survey question, “compared with your health right before you most recently came to the United States to live, would you say that your health is better now, about the same or worse?” The main predictor included age group (50–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years) and secondary variable of interest was level of acculturation. Analyses were adjusted for demographic characteristics, medical, and functional comorbidities. Results Immigrants age ≥75 years were more likely to report worse health after migration [RRR 1.93, 95% CI (1.17, 3.17), p < 0.01] compared with immigrants of 50–64 years, but this difference was not statistically significant in the adjusted model. Acculturation level was associated with increased likelihood of reporting worse health status, [RRR 2.10, (1.02, 4.35), p < 0.05] for somewhat acculturated and [RRR 2.55, (1.10, 5.88), p < 0.05] for most acculturated, compared with participants who were not acculturated. Conclusion The oldest immigrant group (≥75 years) was more likely to report worse health after migration, but this association was no longer significant after accounting for acculturation level and other covariates. Future work should be undertaken to identify specific health needs across older immigrant age groups and identify acculturative stressors that negatively impact health.

No abstract