Search

Public health responses to COVID-19 in long-term residential care facilities (LTRCFs) have restricted family engagement with residents. These restrictions impact on quality of care and the psychosocial and emotional well-being of family caregivers. Following a national cross-sectional web-based survey, respondents were invited to provide personal reflections on visitor restrictions. This study aims to describe the consequences of these restrictions for individuals living in LTRCF and their families during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from open-ended questions contained within the survey were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: 1. Altered Communication and Connection; 2. Emotional and Psychological Impact; 3. Protecting and Caring Role of Staff; 4. Family Role. Throughout the narrative accounts, it is evident that the visitor restrictions impacted on the emotional and mental well-being of families. Some respondents expressed frustration that they could not assist staff in essential care provision, reducing meaning and purpose in their own lives. COVID-19 LTRCF visitor restrictions made little distinction between those providing essential personal care and those who visit for social reasons. A partnership approach to care provision is important and should encompass strategies to maintain the psychosocial and emotional well-being of families and their relatives during times of self-isolating or restrictive measures.

Although several short-risk-prediction instruments are used in the emergency department (ED), there remains insufficient evidence to guide healthcare professionals on their use. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is an established screen comprising three Likert scales examining the risk of three adverse outcomes among community-dwelling older adults at one-year: institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and death, which are scored from one (rare/minimal) to five (certain/extreme) and combined into an Overall RISC score. In the present study, the RISC was externally validated by comparing it with different frailty screens to predict risk of hospitalisation (30-day readmission), prolonged length of stay (LOS), one-year mortality, and institutionalisation among 193 consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending a large university hospital ED in Western Ireland, assessed for frailty, determined by comprehensive geriatric assessment. The median LOS was 8 ± 9 days; 20% were re-admitted

The “surprise question” (SQ) predicts the need for palliative care. Its predictive validity for adverse healthcare outcomes and its association with frailty among older people attending the emergency department (ED) are unknown. We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective study of consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending a university hospital’s ED. The SQ was scored by doctors before an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), frailty determined by CGA and one-year mortality. The SQ was available for 191 patients, whose median age was 79 ± 9. In all, 56/191 (29%) screened SQ positive. SQ positive patients were frailer; the median clinical frailty score was 6/9 (compared to 4/9, p < 0.001); they had longer LOS (p = 0.008); and they had higher mortality (p < 0.001). Being SQ positive was associated with 2.6 times greater odds of admission and 8.9 times odds of frailty. After adjustment for age, sex, frailty, co-morbidity and presenting complaint, patients who were SQ positive had significantly reduced survival times (hazard ratio 5.6; 95% CI: 1.39–22.3, p = 0.015). Almost one-third of older patients attending ED were identified as SQ positive. These were frailer and more likely to be admitted, have reduced survival times and have prolonged LOS. The SQ is useful to quickly stratify older patients likely to experience poor outcomes in ED.

Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly used, short frailty screens to an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in an urban University Hospital ED. Consecutive attendees aged ≥70 years were screened by trained raters, blind to the CGA, with the Variable Indicative of Placement risk (VIP), 3 and 4-item versions, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and PRISMA-7. Accuracy was measured from the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). In total, 197 patients were included, median age 79 (±10); 46% were female. Half (49%) were confirmed as frail after CGA. All instruments differentiated frail from non-frail states, although the CFS (AUROC: 0.91) and PRISMA-7 (AUROC: 0.90) had higher accuracy compared to the VIP-4 (AUROC: 0.84) and VIP-3 (AUROC: 0.84). The CFS was significantly more accurate than the VIP-3 (p = 0.026) or VIP-4 (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference between the CFS and PRISMA-7 (p = 0.90). The CFS and PRISMA-7 were more accurate and should be considered in preference to the VIP (3 or 4-item versions) to identify frailty in EDs.

Background: Prompt and efficient identification and stratification of patients who are frail is important, as this cohort are at high risk of adverse healthcare outcomes. Numerous frailty screening tools have been developed to support their identification across different settings, yet relatively few have emerged for use in emergency departments (EDs). This protocol provides details for a systematic review aiming to synthesize the accumulated evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy and clinimetric properties of frailty screening instruments to identify frail older adults in EDs. Methods: Six electronic databases will be searched from January 2000 to March 2021. Eligible studies will include adults aged ≥60 years screened in EDs with any available screening instrument to identify frailty (even if not originally designed for this purpose). Studies, including case-control, longitudinal, and cohort studies, will be included, where instruments are compared to a reference standard to explore diagnostic accuracy. Predictive accuracy for a selection of outcomes, including mortality, institutionalization, and readmission, will be assessed. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity will be examined, and a random effects meta-analysis performed if appropriate. Conclusion: Understanding whether frailty screening on presentation to EDs is accurate in identifying frailty, and predicting these outcomes is important for decision-making and targeting appropriate management.

Brief cognitive screening instruments are used to identify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms that warrant further assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci-Pr) among middle-aged and older Iranian adults. Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years and caregivers attending with them as normal controls (NCs) were recruited from geriatric outpatient clinics and a hospital in Tehran, Iran. All patients completed the Qmci-Pr before completing an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment and staging using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. NCs underwent the same assessment. In all, 92 participants with a median age of 70 years (±13) were available. Of these, 20 participants were NCs, 24 had subjective memory complaints (SMC), 24 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 24 had Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The Qmci-Pr had good accuracy in differentiating SMC and NC from MCI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.80 (0.69–0.91)) and in identifying cognitive impairment (MCI and mild AD) (AUC: 0.87 (0.80–0.95)) with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 80%, at an optimal cut-off of &lt, 53/100. The Qmci-Pr is an accurate short cognitive screening impairment for separating NC and patients with SMC from MCI and identifying cognitive impairment. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other widely used instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed. Given its established brevity, the Qmci-Pr is a useful screen for Iranian adults across the spectrum of cognitive decline.

Brief cognitive screening instruments are used to identify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms that warrant further assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci-Pr) among middle-aged and older Iranian adults. Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years and caregivers attending with them as normal controls (NCs) were recruited from geriatric outpatient clinics and a hospital in Tehran, Iran. All patients completed the Qmci-Pr before completing an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment and staging using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. NCs underwent the same assessment. In all, 92 participants with a median age of 70 years (±13) were available. Of these, 20 participants were NCs, 24 had subjective memory complaints (SMC), 24 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 24 had Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The Qmci-Pr had good accuracy in differentiating SMC and NC from MCI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.80 (0.69–0.91)) and in identifying cognitive impairment (MCI and mild AD) (AUC: 0.87 (0.80–0.95)) with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 80%, at an optimal cut-off of

Risk stratification to assess healthcare outcomes among older people is challenging due to the interplay of multiple syndromes and conditions. Different short risk-screening tools can assist but the most useful instruments to predict responses and outcomes following interventions are unknown. We examined the relationship between a suite of screening tools and risk of adverse outcomes (pre-determined clinical ‘decline’ i.e., becoming ‘unstable’ or ‘deteriorating’ at 60–90 days, and institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death at 120 days), among community dwellers (n = 88) after admission to a single-centre, Irish, Community Virtual Ward (CVW). The mean age of patients was 82.8 (±6.4) years. Most were severely frail, with mean Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores of 6.8 ± 1.33. Several instruments were useful in predicting ‘decline’ and other healthcare outcomes. After adjustment for age and gender, higher frailty levels, odds ratio (OR) 3.29, (p = 0.002), impaired cognition (Mini Mental State Examination, OR 4.23, p &lt, 0.001), lower mobility (modified FIM) (OR 3.08, p &lt, 0.001) and reduced functional level (Barthel Index, OR 6.39, p &lt, 0.001) were significantly associated with clinical ‘decline’ at 90 days. Prolonged (&gt, 30 s) TUG times (OR 1.27, p = 0.023) and higher CFS scores (OR 2.29, p = 0.045) were associated with institutionalisation. Only TUG scores were associated with hospitalisation and only CFS, MMSE and Barthel scores at baseline were associated with mortality. Utilisation of a multidimensional suite of risk-screening tools across a range of domains measuring frailty, mobility and cognition can help predict clinical ‘decline’ for an already frail older population. Their association with other outcomes was less useful. A better understanding of the utility of these instruments in vulnerable populations will provide a framework to inform the impact of interventions and assist in decision-making and anticipatory care planning for older patients in CVW models.

Frailty in middle-aged and older adults is associated with diabetes-related complications. The impact of and interaction between diabetes and frailty on psychosocial wellbeing and mortality in Ireland for adults aged &ge, 50 years were assessed using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Measures included diabetes status (self-reported), frailty phenotype (&ge, 3/5 criteria), low self-rated health (&ldquo, fair&rdquo, or &ldquo, poor&rdquo, ), depression screening (EURO-D index score &ge, 4), and low quality of life (QoL) (CASP-12 index score &lt, 35). Among the 970 participants, those with diabetes (n = 87) were more likely to be frail (23% vs. 8%, p &lt, 0.001), have low self-rated health (46% vs. 19%, 0.001), depression (25% vs. 17%, p = 0.070), and low QoL (25% vs. 18%, p = 0.085). Adjusting for diabetes, age and sex, frailty independently predicted low self-rated health (OR: 9.79 (5.85&ndash, 16.36)), depression (9.82 (5.93&ndash, 16.25)), and low QoL (8.52 (5.19&ndash, 13.97)). Adjusting for frailty, age and sex, diabetes independently predicted low self-rated health (2.70 (1.63&ndash, 4.47)). The age-sex adjusted mortality hazard ratio was highest for frailty with diabetes (4.67 (1.08&ndash, 20.15)), followed by frailty without diabetes (2.86 (1.17&ndash, 6.99)) and being non-frail with diabetes (1.76 (0.59&ndash, 5.22)). Frailty independently predicts lower self-reported wellbeing and is associated with reduced survival, underpinning its role as an integral part of holistic diabetes care.

Frailty is an independent age-associated predictor of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, many countries lack population estimates with large heterogeneity between studies. No population-based standardised metric for frailty is available. We applied the deficit accumulation model of frailty to create a frailty index (FI) using population-level estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study across 195 countries to create a novel GBD frailty index (GBD-FI). Standard FI criteria were applied to all GBD categories to select GBD-FI items. Content validity was assessed by comparing the GBD-FI with a selection of established FIs. Properties including the rate of deficit accumulation with age were examined to assess construct validity. Linear regression models were created to assess if mean GBD-FI scores predicted one-year incident mortality. From all 554 GBD items, 36 were selected for the GBD-FI. Face validity against established FIs was variable. Characteristic properties of a FI&mdash, higher mean score for females and a deficit accumulation rate of approximately 0.03 per year, were observed. GBD-FI items were responsible for 19% of total Disability-Adjusted Life Years for those aged &ge, 70 years in 2017. Country-specific mean GBD-FI scores ranged from 0.14 (China) to 0.19 (Hungary) and were a better predictor of mortality from non-communicable diseases than age, gender, Healthcare Access and Quality Index or Socio-Demographic Index scores. The GBD-FI is a valid measure of frailty at population-level but further external validation is required.

Impaired sleep is common in hospital. Despite this, little is known about sleep disturbance among older adults attending Emergency Departments (ED), particularly overnight-boarders, those admitted but housed overnight while awaiting a bed. Consecutive, medically-stable patients aged &ge, 70, admitted through a university hospital ED were evaluated for overnight sleep quality (Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire/RCSQ) and baseline sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index/PSQI). Additional variables included frailty, functional and cognitive status, trolley location, time in ED and night-time noise levels. Over four-weeks, 152 patients, mean age 80 (&plusmn, 6.8) years were included, 61% were male. Most (68%) were ED boarders (n = 104) and 43% were frail. The majority (72%) reported impaired sleep quality at baseline (PSQI &ge, 5) and 13% (20/152) had clinical insomnia. The median time spent in ED for boarders was 23 h (Interquartile &plusmn, 13). After adjusting for confounders, median RCSQ scores were significantly poorer for ED boarders compared with non-boarders: 22 (&plusmn, 45) versus 71 (&plusmn, 34), respectively, (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in one-year mortality (p = 0.08) length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.84), 30-day (p = 0.73) or 90-day (p = 0.64) readmission rates between boarders and non-boarders. Sleep disturbance is highly prevalent among older adults admitted through ED. ED boarders experienced significantly poorer sleep, without this impacting upon mortality, LOS or re-admission rates.

Early identification of frailty through targeted screening can facilitate the delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and may improve outcomes for older inpatients. As several instruments are available, we aimed to investigate which is the most accurate and reliable in the Emergency Department (ED). We compared the ability of three validated, short, frailty screening instruments to identify frailty in a large University Hospital ED. Consecutive patients aged &ge, 70 attending ED were screened using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Identification of Seniors at Risk Tool (ISAR), and the Programme on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 item questionnaire (PRISMA-7). An independent CGA using a battery of assessments determined each patient&rsquo, s frailty status. Of the 280 patients screened, complete data were available for 265, with a median age of 79 (interquartile &plusmn, 9), 54% were female. The median CFS score was 4/9 (&plusmn, 2), ISAR 3/6 (&plusmn, 2), and PRISMA-7 was 3/7 (&plusmn, 3). Based upon the CGA, 58% were frail and the most accurate instrument for separating frail from non-frail was the PRISMA-7 (AUC 0.88, 95% CI:0.83&ndash, 0.93) followed by the CFS (AUC 0.83, 95% CI:0.77&ndash, 0.88), and the ISAR (AUC 0.78, 95% CI:0.71&ndash, 0.84). The PRISMA-7 was statistically significantly more accurate than the ISAR (p = 0.008) but not the CFS (p = 0.15). Screening for frailty in the ED with a selection of short screening instruments, but particularly the PRISMA-7, is reliable and accurate.

Although there is a high prevalence of delirium and cognitive impairment among hospitalised older adults, short, reliable cognitive measures are rarely used to monitor cognition and potentially alert healthcare professionals to early changes that might signal delirium. We evaluated the reliability, responsiveness, and feasibility of logical memory (LM), immediate verbal recall of a short story, compared to brief tests of attention as a bedside &ldquo, cognitive vital sign&rdquo, (CVS). Trained nursing staff performed twice-daily cognitive assessments on 84 clinically stable inpatients in two geriatric units over 3&ndash, 5 consecutive days using LM and short tests of attention and orientation including months of the year backwards. Scores were compared to those of an expert rater. Inter-rater reliability was excellent with correlation coefficients for LM increasing from r = 0.87 on day 1 to r = 0.97 by day 4 (p &lt, 0.0001). A diurnal fluctuation of two points from a total of 30 was deemed acceptable in clinically stable patients. LM scores were statistically similar (p = 0.98) with repeated testing (suggesting no learning effect). All nurses reported that LM was feasible to score routinely. LM is a reliable measure of cognition showing diurnal variation but minimal learning effects. Further study is required to define the properties of an ideal CVS test, though LM may satisfy these.

Early detection of dementia provides opportunities for interventions that could delay or prevent its progression. We developed the Japanese version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci-J) screen, which is a performance-based, easy-to-use, valid and reliable short cognitive screening instrument, and then we examined its validity. Community-dwelling adults aged 65&ndash, 84 in Niigata prefecture, Japan, were concurrently administered the Qmci-J and the Japanese version of the standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE-J). Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia were categorized using established and age-adjusted sMMSE-J cut-offs. The sample (n = 526) included 52 (9.9%) participants with suspected dementia, 123 (23.4%) with suspected MCI and 351 with likely normal cognition. The Qmci-J showed moderate positive correlation with the sMMSE-J (r = 0.49, p &lt, 0.001) and moderate discrimination for predicting suspected cognitive impairment (MCI/dementia) based on sMMSE-J cut-offs, area under curve: 0.74, (95%CI: 0.70&ndash, 0.79), improving to 0.76 (95%CI: 0.72 to 0.81) after adjusting for age. At a cut-off of 60/61/100, the Qmci-J had a 73% sensitivity, 68% specificity, 53% positive predictive value, and 83% negative predictive value for cognitive impairment. Normative data are presented, excluding those with any sMMSE-J &lt, 27. Though further research is required, the Qmci-J screen may be a useful screening tool to identify older adults at risk of cognitive impairment.

Incontinence is common and associated with adverse outcomes. There are insufficient point prevalence data for incontinence in hospitals. We evaluated the prevalence of urinary (UI) and faecal incontinence (FI) and their predictors among inpatients in an acute university hospital on a single day. Continence status was recorded using the modified Barthel Index (BI). Baseline characteristics, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and ward type were recorded. In all, 435 patients were assessed, median age 72 &plusmn, 23 years and 53% were male. The median CFS score was 5 &plusmn, 3. The point prevalence of UI was 26% versus 11% for FI. While UI and FI increased with age, to 35.2% and 21.1% respectively for those &ge, 85, age was not an independent predictor. Incontinence also increased with frailty, CFS scores were independently associated with both UI (p = 0.006) and FI (p = 0.03), though baseline continence status was the strongest predictor. Patients on orthopaedic wards had the highest prevalence of incontinence. Continence assessments were available for only 11 (2%) patients. UI and FI are common conditions affecting inpatients, point prevalence increases with age and frailty status. Despite this, few patients receive comprehensive continence assessments. More awareness of its high prevalence is required to ensure incontinence is adequately managed in hospitals.