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

Objectives To develop a values‐based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision‐making. Design Prospective development and feasibility study. Setting Primary care practice in Connecticut. Participants Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64). Intervention The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user‐centered design framework—ideate → prototype → test →redesign—to develop and refine the value‐based patient priorities care process and medical record template with trained clinician facilitators. Measurements We used descriptive statistics of quantitative measures (percentage accepted invitation and completed template, duration of process) and qualitative analysis of barriers and enablers (challenges and solutions identified, facilitator perceptions). Results We developed and refined a process for identifying patient health priorities that was typically completed in 35 to 45 minutes over 2 sessions; 64 patients completed the process. Qualitative analyses were used to elucidate the characteristics and training needed for the patient priorities facilitators, as well as perceived benefits and challenges of the process. Refinements based on our experience and feedback include streamlining the process for greater feasibility, balancing fidelity to the process while customizing to individuals, encouraging patients to share their priorities with their clinicians, and simplifying the template transmitted to clinicians. Conclusion Trained facilitators conducted this process in a busy primary care practice, suggesting that patient priorities identification is feasible and acceptable, although testing in additional settings is necessary. We hope to show that clinicians can align care with patients' health priorities.

Psychological interventions have a long history of successful treatment of patients suffering from mental health and certain medical conditions. At the same time, psychotherapy research has revealed key areas of growth for optimizing patient care. These include identifying novel treatment delivery methods that increase treatment adherence, developing new strategies to more effectively address the ever-growing population of patients with comorbid conditions, and elucidating the mechanisms by which effective treatments work in order to further refine their design. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is an empirically supported psychotherapy that offers promise for patients suffering from a wide range of mental and physical conditions, while addressing these gaps and challenges in the field. ACT rests on the fundamental premise that pain, grief, disappointment, illness, and anxiety are inevitable features of human life, with the therapeutic goal of helping individuals productively adapt to these types of challenges by developing greater psychological flexibility rather than engaging in counterproductive attempts to eliminate or suppress undesirable experiences. This is achieved through committed pursuit of valued life areas and directions, even in the face of the natural desire to escape or avoid painful and troubling experiences, emotions, and thoughts. ACT is transdiagnostic (applies to more than one condition), process-focused, and flexibly delivered. In a relatively short period of time, ACT has been effectively implemented across a broad range of therapeutic settings, including mental health, primary care, and specialty medical clinics. ACT has also been delivered in a variety of formats, including 1-day group workshops, online and smartphone applications, and telehealth. Focus on how best to package and deliver treatment to meet the unique needs of different patient populations helps to ensure treatment adherence and has fostered successful application of ACT for patients in everyday clinical settings.

This study contributes to the understanding of early Blue Button adoption and use of this feature for patient-initiated sharing of health information. Educational efforts are needed to raise awareness of the Blue Button and to address usability issues that hinder adoption.

The concept of psychopathy refers to a pattern of chronic antisocial behavior and personality features, such as emotional detachment, lovelessness, and guiltlessness, attributable in part to a temperament deficit. Historically, that deficit has been seen as a low reactivity to fear, but recent research has documented a second temperament deficit in adults that involves poor emotional and behavioral control. Both pathways are found in the child psychopathology literature, pointing to multifactorial developmental pathways from childhood to adult psychopathy.

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) receive care that is fragmented and burdensome, lacks evidence, and most importantly is not focused on what matters most to them. An implementation feasibility study of Patient Priorities Care (PPC), a new approach to care that is based on health outcome goals and healthcare preferences, was conducted. This study took place at 1 primary care and 1 cardiology practice in Connecticut and involved 9 primary care providers (PCPs), 5 cardiologists, and 119 older adults with MCCs. PPC was implemented using methods based on a practice change framework and continuous plan‐do‐study‐act (PDSA) cycles. Core elements included leadership support, clinical champions, priorities facilitators, training, electronic health record (EHR) support, workflow development and continuous modification, and collaborative learning. PPC processes for clinic workflow and decision‐making were developed, and clinicians were trained. After 10 months, 119 older adults enrolled and had priorities identified; 92 (77%) returned to their PCP after priorities identification. In 56 (46%) of these visits, clinicians documented patient priorities discussions. Workflow challenges identified and solved included patient enrollment lags, EHR documentation of priorities discussions, and interprofessional communication. Time for clinicians to provide PPC remains a challenge, as does decision‐making, including clinicians' perceptions that they are already doing so; clinicians' concerns about guidelines, metrics, and unrealistic priorities; and differences between PCPs and patients and between PCPs and cardiologists about treatment decisions. PDSA cycles and continuing collaborative learning with national experts and peers are taking place to address workflow and clinical decision‐making challenges. Translating disease‐based to priorities‐aligned decision‐making appears challenging but feasible to implement in a clinical setting.

This pilot study compared the effects of a 1-day preventive behavioral intervention (ACT) to TAU in at-risk veterans undergoing orthopedic surgery. Three months following the intervention, veterans receiving ACT exhibited quicker cessation of pain and opioid use. Focusing on preoperative pain management may help prevent chronic postsurgical pain.

Objectives While patients’ health priorities should inform healthcare, strategies for doing so are lacking for patients with multiple conditions. We describe challenges to, and strategies that support, patients’ priorities-aligned decision-making. Design Participant observation qualitative study. Setting Primary care and cardiology practices in Connecticut. Participants Ten primary care clinicians, five cardiologists, and the Patient Priorities implementation team (four geriatricians, physician expert in clinician training, behavioral medicine expert). The patients discussed were ≥ 66 years with >3 chronic conditions and ≥10 medications or saw ≥ two specialists. Exposure Following initial training and experience in providing Patient Priorities Care, the clinicians and Patient Priorities implementation team participated in 21 case-based, group discussions (10 face-to-face;11 telephonic). Using emergent learning (i.e. learning which arises from interactions among the participants), participants discussed challenges, posed solutions, and worked together to determine how to align care options with the health priorities of 35 patients participating in the Patient Priorities Care pilot. Main outcomes Challenges to, and strategies for, aligning decision-making with patient’s health priorities. Results Categories of challenges discussed among participants included uncertainty, complexity, and multiplicity of problems and treatments; difficulty switching to patients’ priorities as the focus of decision-making; and differing perspectives between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians. Strategies identified to support patient priorities-aligned decision-making included starting with one thing that matters most to each patient; conducting serial trials of starting, stopping, or continuing interventions; focusing on function (i.e. achieving patient’s desired activities) rather than eliminating symptoms; basing communications, decision-making, and effectiveness on patients’ priorities not solely on diseases; and negotiating shared decisions when there are differences in perspectives. Conclusions The discrete set of challenges encountered and the implementable strategies identified suggest that patient priorities-aligned decision-making in the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions is feasible, albeit complicated. Findings require replication in additional settings and determination of their effect on patient outcomes.