Approximately, 20 million older adults undergo major elective surgery annually, yet less than 10% engage in advance care planning (ACP). This is a critical missed opportunity to optimally engage in patient-aligned medical decisions and communications in the perioperative setting. The PREPARE ACP programme (easy-to-read advance directives (ADs) and a patient-directed, online ACP programme) has been shown to increase ACP documentation and patient and clinician empowerment to discuss ACP. Yet, a gap remains in extending PREPARE’s use to surgical populations. We hypothesise that by delivering PREPARE in a patient-facing electronic health record (EHR) centric presurgery workflow for older adults, supported by automated patient reminders and outreach from a healthcare navigator (HCN), we can enable patients and/or surgical teams to engage in ACP discussions.

This is a three-site, single-blinded, pragmatic randomised trial comparing increasing intensity of ACP-focused, patient-facing EHR messaging and HCN support. The outreach occurs prior to a new presurgical clinic visit. We will enrol 6000 patients (2000 each site) aged 65 and older and randomise them equally to the following study arms: (Arm 1) ACP-related cover letter and PREPARE URL information sent via patient portal and postal mail (includes cover letter, AD and PREPARE pamphlet); (Arm 2) Arm 1 plus reminder message via text or MyChart message and (Arm 3) Arm 2 plus HCN outreach and support. The primary outcome is clinically meaningful ACP documentation in the EHR (ie, surrogate designation, documented discussions and ADs) within 6 months of the new surgical visit. The rate of ACP documentation will be compared between treatment groups using generalised estimating equations. Secondary outcomes include a validated four-item ACP engagement survey, administered 2 weeks after the presurgical visit and 6 months later. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle and recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines.

The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, Protection of Human Volunteers (21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50), Institutional Review Boards (21 CFR 56) and Obligations of Clinical Investigators (21 CFR 312). The protocol and consent form were reviewed and approved by Advarra, an National Insitutes of Health (NIH)-approved, commercial, centralised Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB/Independent Ethics Committee of each participating centre reviewed and approved the protocol and consent and obtained reliance agreements with Advarra prior to study initiation. The study is guided by input from patient and clinical advisory boards and a data safety monitoring board. The results of the study will be disseminated to both academic and community stakeholders, complying with all applicable privacy laws.

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06090552.

Advarra Pro 00070994.

23-38948.

Protocol Date: 24 October 2024. Protocol Version: 4.

The number of people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs or ‘multimorbidity’) is growing. Evidence indicates that exercise-based rehabilitation can improve health-related quality of life and reduce hospital admissions for a number of single long-term conditions. However, it is increasingly recognised that such condition-focused rehabilitation programmes do not meet the needs of people living with MLTCs. The aims for this study were to (1) evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the newly developed Personalised Exercise Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) intervention; (2) assess the feasibility of study methods to inform progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and (3) refine our intervention programme theory.

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients receiving and healthcare practitioners delivering the PERFORM intervention, to seek their experiences of the intervention and taking part in the study. Interviews were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory and the programme theory.

Three UK sites (two acute hospital settings, one community-based healthcare setting).

18 of the 60 PERFORM participants and 6 healthcare professionals were interviewed.

The intervention consisted of 8 weeks of supervised group-based exercise rehabilitation and structured self-care symptom-based support.

All participants and staff interviewed found PERFORM useful for physical and mental well-being and noted positive impacts of participation, although some specific modifications to the intervention delivery and training and study methods were identified. Scheduling, staffing and space limitations were barriers that must be considered for future evaluation and implementation. Key intervention mechanisms identified were social support, patient education, building routines and habits, as well as support from healthcare professionals.

We found the PERFORM intervention to be acceptable and feasible, with the potential to improve the health and well-being of people with MLTCs. The findings of the process evaluation inform the future delivery of the PERFORM intervention and the design of our planned full RCT. A definitive trial is needed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness.

ISRCTN68786622.

Existing exercise-based rehabilitation services, such as cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation, are traditionally commissioned around single long-term conditions (LTCs) and therefore may not meet the complex needs of adults with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) or multimorbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed personalised exercise-rehabilitation programme for people with multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) and the trial methods.

A parallel two-group mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation.

Three UK sites (two acute hospital settings, one community-based healthcare setting).

60 adults with MLTCs (defined as the presence of ≥2 LTCs) with at least one known to benefit from exercise therapy were randomised 2:1 to PERFORM intervention plus usual care (PERFORM group) or usual care alone (control group).

The intervention consisted of 8 weeks of supervised group-based exercise rehabilitation and structured self-care symptom-based support.

Primary feasibility outcomes included: trial recruitment (percentage of a target of 60 participants recruited within 4.5 months), retention (percentage of participants with complete EuroQol data at 3 months) and intervention adherence (percentage of intervention group attending ≥60% sessions). Other feasibility measures included completion of outcome measures at baseline (pre-randomisation), 3 months post-randomisation (including patient-reported outcomes, exercise capacity and collection of health and social care resource use) and intervention fidelity.

Target recruitment (40 PERFORM group, 20 control group) was met within the timeframe. Participants were 57% women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (13) years, body mass index of 30.8 (8.0) kg/m² and a median of 4 LTCs (most common: diabetes (41.7%), hypertension (38.3%), asthma (36.7%) and a painful condition (35.0%)). We achieved EuroQol outcome retention of 76.7% (95% CI: 65.9% to 87.1%; 46/60 participants) and intervention adherence of 72.5% (95% CI: 56.3% to 84.4%; 29/40 participants). Data completion for attendees was over 90% for 11/18 outcome measures.

Our findings support the feasibility and rationale for delivering the PERFORM comprehensive self-management and exercise-based rehabilitation intervention for people living with MLTCs and progression to a full multicentre RCT to formally assess clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

ISRCTN68786622.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial decrease was observed in hospital admissions and in-hospital procedures for patients with acute cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The extent to which measures to prevent COVID-19 transmission, for example, lockdowns, affected the outpatient care of patients at higher cardiovascular risk remains unclear. We aimed to compare outpatient department (OPD) attendance, cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and cardiovascular health (CVH) of patients at higher cardiovascular risk referred to an OPD of a tertiary care centre between preCOVID-19, during and postCOVID-19 periods.

We included all adult patients at higher cardiovascular risk referred to the cardiology, vascular medicine, diabetology, geriatrics, nephrology or multidisciplinary vascular surgery OPDs of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands, between March 2019 and December 2022, in a prospective cohort study.

We assessed trends in the number of first and follow-up appointments and in the completeness of extractable CVRM indicators from the electronic health record (EHR) as a proxy for CVRM guideline adherence. CVH was determined using the Life’s Essential 8 metric (score 0–100, the higher score, the better). We investigated whether CVH differed between COVID-19 periods compared with the reference period (ie, 2019) and stratified by OPDs, using multivariable linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, CVD history and whether the patient had a previous appointment before the reference period.

Among 15 143 patients, we observed a 33% reduction in the weekly number of first appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the largest reductions in the cardiology and nephrology OPDs, with no differences between women and men. Follow-up appointments conducted remotely, compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic, increased significantly for all OPDs. CVRM indicators were up to 11% less extractable during the first lockdown yet returned to prepandemic levels directly after the first lockdown period. The CVH score of patients visiting the nephrology, vascular medicine and geriatrics OPDs during the first lockdown was 11.23 (95% CI 2.74 to 19.72), 5.68 (95% CI 0.82 to 10.54) and 5.66 (95% CI 0.01 to 11.31) points higher, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. In between the second and third lockdowns, the CVH score was comparable to the preCOVID reference period, yet for the cardiology OPD it was significantly higher (5.54, 95% CI 2.04 to 9.05).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly numbers of first appointments to OPDs decreased, and a population with a higher CVH score (ie, better CVH) visited certain OPDs, especially during the first lockdown period. These suggest that patients with poorer CVH more often avoided or were unable to visit OPDs, which might have resulted in missed opportunities to control cardiovascular risk factors and potentially may have led to preventable disease outcomes. For future epidemics and pandemics, it seems vital to develop a strategy that includes an emphasis on seeking healthcare when needed, with specific attention to patients at higher CVD risk.