Today we're delighted to talk with Anne Walling, Neil Wenger, and Rebecca Sudore about a pragmatic implementation trial aimed at increasing advance care planning for primary care patients with serious illness in University of California clinics, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Seriously ill primary care patients were identified using structured data fields (meaning routinely captured without needing to read the chart or use natural language processing).

This study focused on patients without a completed advance directive or POLST form. This was a 3 arm trial that tested a nudge in the patient portal and a mailed advanced directive vs. the nudge plus a link to PrepareForYourCare vs. the nudge plus PrepareForYourCare plus a navigator reminding patients to talk with their doctor and bring any completed advance directives or POLST forms to the PCP visit.

In brief, the study found that at 2 years there were higher rates of advance directive or POLST in the electronic health record (about 20%) in the arm with the nudge plus PrepareForYourCare plus the navigator compared to the other 2 arms (around 13%). Rates of advance care planning discussions with primary care providers were similarly higher in the 3rd arm. Health care utilization, however, did not differ between arms. Please see links to articles describing the intervention in detail and incorporation of stakeholder perspectives.

I'm going to cut to the pushback to this article right up front:

• The study's primary outcomes were advanced directives or completion of POLST forms - haven't we moved beyond thinking completion of forms should be the primary outcome of advance care planning research?

• There was no control condition. Observed increases in advance directive or POLST in the electronic health record may have occurred without any intervention. People with serious illness get sicker with time and the sicker they are the more likely they are to engage in advance care planning, without any intervention. This is particularly true as the study occurred during the hight of the Covid pandemic, when there was a global effort to increase advance care planning. How much did these interventions contribute on top of that rise that might have occurred without intervention?

• Observed documentation - 13-20% - was low. Is it worth the effort of getting buy-in to automate these EHR nudges and spend FTE to hire a navigator? Particularly as health systems, who pushed for focusing on seriously ill patients because they are the most expensive/highest utilizers, did not get what they wanted, i.e. no difference in utilization of acute healthcare services between arms?

Our guests provide a strong defense and additional context, which you can and should listen to on the podcast. And I have to point out, setting aside the advance care planning aspect, the method of identifying upstream primary care patients with serious illness is a major contribution to the field in and of itself. Pioneers in the field, led by Amy Kelley, have been working to identify the seriously ill population for over a decade.

And a fun fact about All You Need is Love - the verses are in 7/4 time!

-Alex Smith

In 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring hospitals participating in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) program to report on a new "Age-Friendly Hospital Measure." The hope is that, by attesting to this measure, hospitals will develop evidence-based processes to improve care for older adults in hospital settings.

On this week's podcast, we explore this new measure with Sheri Ling, CMS's Deputy Chief Medical Officer serving in the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ). We've also invited some returning guests from our past Age Friendly Health Systems podcast, Julia Adler-Milstein and Stephanie Rogers, to discuss how they are thinking about this new measure and how we should operationalize it.

We go over everything you will want to know about the new measure, including:

• How does this CMS measure differ from both Age-Friendly Health Systems and the 4Ms movement we've been hearing about for years (and that we did the podcast on in 2020 here)

• Why is CMS finally making "Age-Friendly" a formal, structural requirement for hospitals now?

• What is an attestation measure vs outcome measure, and why is this one an attestation measure?

• A deeper dive into the 5 domains to the measure (Eliciting Patient Goals, Medication Management, Frailty Screening, Social Determinants of Health, and Leadership/Governance.

Lastly, here are some great resources if you want to help get this started at your hospital:

• A report by JAHF, Julia and others on how to think about different dimensions of measure performance

• Health Affairs Scholar paper on related the 4Ms to the 5 domains

• Two CMS resources with detailed information on how to meet and report on the five domains of this measure:

• • Age-Friendly Hospital Specifications (July 2025)

  • Age-Friendly Hospital Measure Attestation Guide

A few weeks ago, I was skimming this NEJM paper for UCSF's Division of Geriatrics Journal club on de-prescribing anti-hypertensive medications for older adults in nursing homes. Seemed to make a world of sense. The study found no difference between the deprescribing arm and the usual care arm in mortality, the primary study outcome. I thought, great! So we can deprescribe anti-hypertensives without changing mortality, that must be what the authors concluded.

I was shocked, therefore, to read in the first paragraph of the discussion that the deprescribing arm did not achieve the hypothesized 25% reduction in mortality. What?!? Why would deprescribing be associated with reduced mortality? That's not the main reason or even the first reason I think of for deprescribing. Reducing side effects that impair quality of life, sure. Less pill burden, of course. But prolonged life? Seemed a stretch.

Today we hear from the first author of this study, Athanase Benetos, an esteemed geriatrician-researcher from France. For context, we also interviewed Mike Steinman, co-chair of the Beers criteria and co-lead of the US Deprescribing Research Network.

We learned about:

• Why the hypothesis of reduced mortality in deprescribing was justified, based on natural decreases in blood pressure with aging, and the Partridge study, an observational study that found higher risks of mortality associated with using multiple anti-hypertensive and low blood pressure.

• Why mortality was chosen as the primary outcome.

• Is a negative superiority study the same as what they might have found in a non-inferiority study? (stay with us)

• Variation in outcome by frailty status

• How to place this study in context with other research, such as the Danton study mentioned on a recent podcast about deprescribing near the end of life. Dantos was a study of deprescribing for nursing home residents with dementia that was stopped early due to safety concerns. Other studies for context include Sprint, Optimize, and an observational study by Bocheng Jing (UCSF statistician in our group).

At the end, we ask our guests to put it together. With all that we know at this point, what's a clinician to do? To deprescribe or not to deprescribe?

And, zoot alors! I get to sing Hymne A L'amour in French! Athanase recounts the moving story of how Edith Piaf sang this song the night she learned the man she loved, Marcel Cerdan, died in a plane crash.

-Alex Smith

It's an era of breakthroughs in Alzheimer's research, yet for many clinicians, it's also a time of profound uncertainty. We are currently navigating competing definitions of the disease, multiple new biomarkers coming on market seemingly every week, and the clinical rollout of new amyloid antibodies.

How do we translate this rapid-fire science into daily practice? On this week's GeriPal podcast, we sit down with dementia experts Halima Amjad, Barak Gaster, and Heather Whitson. We dive deep into:

• The evolving definitions of Alzheimer's disease. Does someone have Alzheimer's disease if you have only an abnormal biomarker as defined by the Alzheimer's Association, or is amyloid pathology necessary but not sufficient to define Alzheimer's as per the International Working Group (IWG) recommendations?

• Where do blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's fit into the diagnostic workup, and should they be used at all in primary care? FYI - here is my take on that question in a recent JAMA IM article titled "The Limited Role of Alzheimer's Disease Blood-Based Biomarkers in Primary Care."

• What's the role of amyloid antibodies in the care of individuals with Alzheimer's disease, including who to use them on?

We covered a lot and discussed some of these resources that you can do a deeper dive on:

• Blood-based biomarker resources

• • JAMA article on Blood-Based Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Preventing Unintended Consequences

  • Alzheimer's Dementia article on Blood-based biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer's disease pathology in cognitively impaired individuals within specialized care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • JAMA IM article on The Limited Role of Alzheimer Disease Blood-Based Biomarkers in Primary Care

• Appropriate use recommendations for amyloid antibodies

• • Donanemab: Appropriate use recommendations

  • Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations

• Primary Care Resources

• • Cognition in Primary Care program

  • A JAGS article on "Large Health System Quality Improvement Intervention Providing Training and Tools to Improve Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care"

• Other resources

• • AGS's new online curriculum for Alzheimer's Disease

By Eric Widera

Today we're doing something different. Today, dear listeners, you get two podcasts for the price of one! (OK, our podcasts are both free, but you get the idea).

We're joined today by Chris Comeaux, host of TCN Talks, a podcast about leadership, strategy, innovation, and the future of serious illness care, and author of The Anatomy of Leadership. We are also joined by TCN Talks' frequent guest host Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics, which provides in depth data on hospice quality, utilization, and access, and publisher of Hospice and Palliative Care Today, a daily email about the hottest stories and news in the field.

This is an "ask us anything" style podcast in which we get to ask each other questions. Our discussions focus on concerning trends in hospice, Ira Byock's white paper, concerning trends in hospice, certificate of need, danger of losing a generation of junior researchers and hope in the form of ASCENT, various measures of hospice quality including Cordt's National Hospice Locator, which ranks all area hospice by quality, unlike CMS's Hospice Care Compare, which only has star ratings for about 30% of hospices.

Hospice and palliative care are going through a tough growth period, and sometimes being real with your friends and colleagues in your field means tough love. Love hurts. And no, I'm not attempting the Nazareth version!

-Alex Smith

Philippe Pinel remarked in 1800 that "It is an art of no little importance to administer medicines properly, but it is an art of much greater and more difficult acquisition to know when to suspend or altogether to omit them." This insight remains profoundly relevant today, especially in hospice care, where inappropriate prescribing is a common issue. Studies show that 20%–70% of hospice patients receive at least one unnecessary medication near the end of life, including drugs like antihypertensives, statins, and vitamins.

In this episode of the GeriPal Podcast, we tackle the pressing topic of deprescribing at the end of life with expert guests Jennifer Tjia, Jon Furuno, and Simon Mooijaart. The conversation focuses on identifying medications that should almost always be discontinued—such as statins, osteoporosis meds, finasteride, and vitamins, which offer minimal benefit for patients with limited life expectancy. We also delve into more nuanced cases, such as antithrombotics, which present complex decisions that challenge clinicians, particularly when prognosis spans the many weeks to months range.

Finally, we explore practical strategies for engaging patients and families in deprescribing conversations. Our guests highlight tools such as the FRAME mnemonic (Focus on the goals of care, Review current medications, Assess each medication's risk/benefit, Minimize the medication burden, and Evaluate regularly) and the Goal Concurrent Prescribing tool, which helps ensure medication decisions align with patients' values and end-of-life priorities.

By: Eric Widera

Other resources discussed in the podcast

• Prevalence and Factors Associated With Receiving a Prescription for Antithrombotic Therapy on Hospice Admission," JAGS. 2025

• Discontinuation of Anticoagulants and Occurrence of Bleeding and Thromboembolic Events in Vitamin K Antagonist Users with a Life-limiting Disease. 2025

• Effects of the discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment on neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in nursing home residents with dementia (DANTON): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised controlled trial. 2024

• Perspectives on deprescribing in palliative care. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2023

• Developing a decision support tool for the continuation or deprescribing of antithrombotic therapy in patients receiving end-of-life care: Results of a European Delphi study. Thrombosis Research. 2025

• Human-Centered Design Development and Acceptability Testing of a Goal Concordant Prescribing Program in Hospice. JPM 2025

• Reduction of Antihypertensive Treatment in Nursing Home Residents. NEJM 2025

Do you think your hospital should allow unilateral DNR orders? Under what circumstances? Through what process? Do you think that when you obtain the assent of a family to not code their loved one, that assent DNR should be counted as a unilateral DNR order? Should we document unilateral DNR and the rationale? Why for DNR, when we don't document unilateral dialysis not offered, or unilateral no ECMO offered? Is the assent of a family member to a statement that we will not code their loved one a nudge, and is the assent approach ethical? Reasonable people will disagree, as we do on this podcast.

Our guests today are Gina Piscitello, Erin DeMartino, and Will Parker, authors of a terrific viewpoint in JAMA about the need to address inadequate documentation of unilateral DNR orders. You might recall Gina was a guest on our lively podcast about slow codes, and we pick up where that podcast left off.

We highlight the many clinical, practical, and ethical issues at stake, including Gina's finding that during Covid, 3% of critically ill patients receiving pressors had a unilateral DNR order. Black patients and those who spoke Spanish had higher rates of unilateral DNR. That variation should trouble those in favor of unilateral DNR orders. We talk about variation Gina found at the state and health system level, and what exactly is concerning, the variation itself, or the lack of thought and care that went into some of these policies.

Are you a heartbreaker? Dream Maker? Love taker? Don't you mess around with me. (song hint)

-Alex

The idea of embedding various forms of non-emergency care in the emergency department makes a WORLD of sense. If an older adult comes into the ED with a fall, the minimum the ED has to do is address the fall injury and send them out. But many emergency providers realize this is often a band aid. They see that patient again the next time they fall. And again. And again. The same could be said for the patient who is malnourished and dehydrated and admitted for "failure to thrive," again. And again.

Our two guests today, Liz Goldberg and Lauren Southerland, both emergency medicine physician-researchers, have had enough. On our podcast today they discuss how these sorts of experiences led them to argue that other services that can address the underlying causes that lead to ED visits. Liz Goldberg developed the GAPcare model to address falls, which includes a physical therapist and pharmacist seeing patients on the spot in the ED. Lauren Southerland got Columbus Ohio Office of Aging staff to re-locate from their desks to the emergency department, where they could sign patients up for home delivered meals, medical transportation, adult day services, home modification such as grab bars, and utility assistance for electricity, gas, and water bills.

With GAPcare, Liz saw a 66% drop in ED visits for fall over 6 months from her pilot (subsequent fall outcomes of the GAPcare II study will be linked here when published). Remarkable, particularly in the context of the primary care STRIDE intervention, which did not reduce injurious falls (e.g. the type that would result in an ED visit). Maybe the ED is just a better place to intervene? Patients are motivated to change. Get the physical therapist and pharmacist in there!

In a study published in JAGS, Lauren found 50% of participants were linked to a new Office of Aging service initiated during the ED visit, with no increase in ED length of stay or hospital admission rate. See also this terrific JAGS editorial on Lauren's paper by Liz. Putting on my JAGS editor hat - both the study and editorial have terrific color figures. A great way to increase your odds of review and acceptance at JAGS is to include one or more high-impact color figures that convey the main findings or points of your manuscript.

We talk about the potential downsides, real and perceived in embedding care in the ED. Should everything be embedded? We talk about how these interventions relate to geriatric ED certification. Lauren talks about a remarkable model in Australia that includes a geriatric RN embedded in the ED.

Most encouraging is that Liz and Lauren are finding other adopting these interventions. Word is spreading. Other emergency providers have had enough of the endless cycle. Enough.

And I got to belt out Gravity, by John Mayer!

-Alex