Assessing the Content of Goals of Care Documentation for Hospitalized Patients With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.

Gina Piscitello, Jennifer Lingler, Katherine Ramos, Yael Schenker, Robert M Arnold, Jane Schell
{"title":"Assessing the Content of Goals of Care Documentation for Hospitalized Patients With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.","authors":"Gina Piscitello, Jennifer Lingler, Katherine Ramos, Yael Schenker, Robert M Arnold, Jane Schell","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Goals of care (GOC) conversations are an evidence-based practice that help clarify and align patient values and preferences for medical care with treatment options. Little is known about how clinicians document the content of GOC conversations for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) in the electronic health record (EHR) and whether this may differ across hospitals. We aimed to assess the content of GOC documentation for hospitalized patients with and without AD/ADRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study to assess documented content within a standardized GOC note written for seriously ill hospitalized adult patients admitted to 21 hospitals between 2021 and 2023. Seriously ill patients had a predicted 90-day mortality greater than 30% as determined by an artificial intelligence mortality prediction score. Patients with AD/ADRD were identified using diagnostic codes placed by clinicians in the EHR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our review of GOC documentation across 21 hospitals identified 5475 patients with GOC notes. The study sample had a median age of 76 years and was 52% male, 13% nonwhite, 81% with Medicare insurance, and 14% with AD/ADRD. Compared to patients without AD/ADRD, patients with AD/ADRD were more likely to have documentation of family presence at the GOC conversation (93% vs. 76%, p = < 0.001), a surrogate decision-maker (60% vs. 54%, p = 0.003), and patient prognosis (84% vs. 78%, p = < 0.001). Patients with AD/ADRD were less likely to have documentation of patient presence at the GOC conversation (28% vs. 64%, p = < 0.001) and patient values and preferences for medical care (65% vs. 69%, p = < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hospitalized patients with AD/ADRD are infrequently present in GOC conversations and less likely to have their values and preferences for medical care documented within a GOC note. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Goals of care (GOC) conversations are an evidence-based practice that help clarify and align patient values and preferences for medical care with treatment options. Little is known about how clinicians document the content of GOC conversations for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) in the electronic health record (EHR) and whether this may differ across hospitals. We aimed to assess the content of GOC documentation for hospitalized patients with and without AD/ADRD.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study to assess documented content within a standardized GOC note written for seriously ill hospitalized adult patients admitted to 21 hospitals between 2021 and 2023. Seriously ill patients had a predicted 90-day mortality greater than 30% as determined by an artificial intelligence mortality prediction score. Patients with AD/ADRD were identified using diagnostic codes placed by clinicians in the EHR.

Results: Our review of GOC documentation across 21 hospitals identified 5475 patients with GOC notes. The study sample had a median age of 76 years and was 52% male, 13% nonwhite, 81% with Medicare insurance, and 14% with AD/ADRD. Compared to patients without AD/ADRD, patients with AD/ADRD were more likely to have documentation of family presence at the GOC conversation (93% vs. 76%, p = < 0.001), a surrogate decision-maker (60% vs. 54%, p = 0.003), and patient prognosis (84% vs. 78%, p = < 0.001). Patients with AD/ADRD were less likely to have documentation of patient presence at the GOC conversation (28% vs. 64%, p = < 0.001) and patient values and preferences for medical care (65% vs. 69%, p = < 0.05).

Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with AD/ADRD are infrequently present in GOC conversations and less likely to have their values and preferences for medical care documented within a GOC note. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for these findings.

评估阿尔茨海默病及相关痴呆住院患者护理文件目标的内容。
背景:护理目标(GOC)对话是一种基于证据的实践,有助于澄清和调整患者的价值观和对医疗保健的偏好与治疗方案。关于临床医生如何在电子健康记录(EHR)中记录阿尔茨海默病和相关痴呆(AD/ADRD)患者的GOC对话内容,以及这是否会因医院而异,我们知之甚少。我们的目的是评估伴有和不伴有AD/ADRD的住院患者GOC记录的内容。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性横断面研究,以评估2021年至2023年间21家医院收治的重症成人住院患者的标准化GOC记录中的记录内容。根据人工智能死亡率预测评分,重症患者的90天预测死亡率高于30%。使用临床医生在电子病历中放置的诊断代码来识别AD/ADRD患者。结果:我们回顾了21家医院的GOC文件,确定了5475名有GOC记录的患者。研究样本的中位年龄为76岁,52%为男性,13%为非白人,81%为医疗保险,14%为AD/ADRD。与没有AD/ADRD的患者相比,AD/ADRD患者更有可能在GOC谈话中有家人在场的记录(93%对76%,p =结论:住院AD/ADRD患者很少参加GOC谈话,在GOC笔记中记录他们的价值观和医疗偏好的可能性更小。需要进一步的研究来探索这些发现的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信