AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine

1–5: AMDA – The Society for Post -Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine convened a work group made up of members from the Clinical Practice Steering Committee (CPSC). Members of the CPSC include board certified geriatricians, certified medical directors, multi-facility medical directors, attending practitioners, physicians practicing in both office-based and nursing facility practice, physicians in rural, suburban and academic settings, those with university appointments, and more. It was important to AMDA that the workgroup chosen represent the core base of the AMDA membership. Ideas for the “five things” were solicited from the workgroup. Suggested elements were considered for appropriateness, relevance to the core of the specialty and opportunities to improve patient care. They were further refined to maximize impact and eliminate overlap, and then ranked in order of potential importance both for the specialty and for the public. A literature search was conducted to provide supporting evidence or refute the activities. The list was modified and a second round of selection of the refined list was sent to the workgroup for paring down to the final “top five” list. Finally, the work group chose its top five recommendations before submitting a final draft to the AMDA Executive Committee, which were then approved.

6–10: The AMDA Choosing Wisely® endeavor utilized a similar procedure as published in JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(4):509-515 – A Top 5 List for Emergency Medicine for our five items.

The AMDA Clinical Practice Committee acted as the Technical Expert Panel (TEP).

Phase 1 – The Clinical Practice Steering Committee (CPSC) along with the Infection Advisory Committee clinicians brainstormed an initial list of low-value clinical decisions that are under control of PA/LTC physicians that were thought to have a potential for cost savings.

Phase 2 – Each member of the CPSC selected five low-value tests considering the perceived contribution to cost (how commonly the item is ordered and the individual expense of the test/treatment/action), benefit of the item (scientific evidence to support use of the item in the literature or in guidelines); and highly actionable (use decided by PA/LTC clinicians only).

Phase 3 – A survey was sent to all AMDA members. Statements were phrased as specific overuse statements by using the word “don’t,” thereby reflecting the action necessary to improve the value of care.

Phase 4 – CPSC members reviewed survey results and chose the five items.

(11–15)
The AMDA Choosing Wisely project utilized procedures similar to previous workgroups.
In Phase 1 – The Clinical Practice Steering Committee (CPSC) solicited recommendations from members of the Society’s five subcommittees.

In Phase 2 – Each member of the CPSC reviewed the submitted recommendations (with the goal to selecting the best five recommendations) considering the
perceived contribution to cost, benefit of the item and scientific evidence to support use of the item in the literature or in guidelines. Based on the feedback of the CPSC, the recommendations were narrowed to five, revised, and supporting evidence was added.

Phase 3 – The revised five recommendations and sources were reviewed by the CPSC for final approval, and then approved by the Board of Directors.
Sources

For more information, visit www.paltc.org.

Teno JM, Gozalo PL, Mitchell SL, Kuo S, Rhodes RL, Bynum JP, Mor V. Does feeding tube insertion and its timing improve survival? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Oct;60(10):1918-21.

Hanson LC, Ersek M, Gilliam R, Carey TS. Oral feeding options for people with dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(3):463-72.

Palecek EJ, Teno JM, Casarett DJ, Hanson LC, Rhodes RL, Mitchell SL. Comfort feeding only: a proposal to bring clarity to decision-making regarding difficulty with eating for persons with advanced dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(3):580.

Sorrell JM. Use of feeding tubes in patients with advanced dementia: are we doing harm? J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010 May;48(5):15-8.

Sampson EL, Candy B, Jones L. Enteral tube feeding for older people with advanced dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD007209.

Gillick MR, Volandes AE. The standard of caring: why do we still use feeding tubes in patients with advanced dementia? J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008 Jun;9(5):364-7.

Ganzini L. Artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life: ethics and evidence. Palliat Support Care. 2006 Jun;4(2):135-43.

Li I. Feeding tubes in patients with severe dementia. Am Fam Physician. 2002 Apr 15;65(8):1605-11.

Gieniuse M, Sinvani L, Kozikowski a, Patel V, Nouryan C, Williams M, Kohn N, Pekmezaris, Wolf-Kliein G. Percutaneous Feeding Tubes in Individuals with Advanced Dementia: Are Physicians “Choosing Wisely”? Journal AmGerSociety. 2018 January; (66) 1.

Tabuenca A, Trallero J, Orna J, Breton, M. Clinical Nutrition. 2019 April;2(38)2.

Gillick MR. Rethinking the role of tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:206-10.

Goldberg L., Altman K. The role of gastrostomy tube placement in advanced dementia with dysphagia: a critical review. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2014;9:1733–1739. doi: 10.2147/cia.s53153