Search

Background: Short cognitive screening instruments (CSI) are required to identify cognitive impairment in busy outpatient clinics. While the Six Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT) is commonly used, its accuracy in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and against more widely-used CSIs is less well established. Objective: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of the 6CIT against the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen across the cognitive spectrum in a memory clinic population. Methods: In total, 142 paired assessments were available (21 with SCD, 32 MCI, and 89 with dementia). Consecutive patients underwent a comprehensive assessment and were screened using the 6CIT, Qmci, and MoCA. Accuracy was determined from the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Results: The median age of patients was 76 (±11) years; 68% were female. The median 6CIT score was 10/28 (±14). The 6CIT was strongly, negatively, and statistically significantly correlated with the Qmci (r = –0.84) and MoCA (r = –0.86). The 6CIT had good accuracy for separating cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia) from SCD, (AUC:0.88; 0.82–0.94), similar to the MoCA (AUC:0.92; 0.87–0.97, p = 0.308), but statistically lower than the Qmci (AUC:0.96; 0.94–0.99, p = 0.01). The 6CIT was faster to administer, median time 2.05 minutes versus 4.38 and 9.5 for the Qmci and MoCA, respectively. Conclusion: While the Qmci was more accurate than the 6CIT, the shorter administration time of the 6CIT, suggests it may be useful when assessing or monitoring cognitive impairment in busy memory clinics, though larger samples are required to evaluate.

This systematic literature review aimed to provide an overview of the characteristics and methods used in studies applying the Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY) concept for infectious diseases within European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries and the United Kingdom. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched for articles reporting the assessment of DALY and its components. We considered studies in which researchers performed DALY calculations using primary epidemiological data input sources. We screened 3,053 studies of which 2,948 were excluded and 105 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 22 were multi-country and 83 were single-country studies, of which 46 were from the Netherlands. Food- and water-borne diseases were the most frequently studied infectious diseases. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of burden of infectious disease studies was 1.6 times higher compared to that published between 2000 and 2014. Almost all studies (97%) estimated DALYs based on the incidence- and pathogen-based approach and without social weighting functions; however, there was less methodological consensus with regards to the disability weights and life tables that were applied. The number of burden of infectious disease studies undertaken across Europe has increased over time. Development and use of guidelines will promote performing burden of infectious disease studies and facilitate comparability of the results., peer-reviewed

Possin and Rosen provide a robust commentary exploring the challenges of using caregivers as cognitive testers. Informants have an important and often overlooked role in diagnosing cognitive impairment. O’Caoimh et al. show they can support cognitive screening in advance of clinic, suggesting new research avenues including the potential for home-monitoring. Although concerns testing may engender bias, introduce practice effects, and impact patient autonomy are valid and require examination, these should be viewed in light of patient preference, clinical need, and the broader ethics of assessing dementia. The importance of distinguishing concerns over accuracy and ethical appropriateness is also discussed.

Background: Self or home-administered cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) can reduce barriers to the early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Objective: To examine the acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a caregiver-administered CSI, the Quick Memory Check (QMC). Methods: Components of the Quick Mild Cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen (orientation, verbal fluency, and logical memory) were re-weighted to create the QMC, scored out of 100 points. Participants, attending a university hospital memory clinic, were provided administration instructions beforehand. Area under the curve (AUC) scores, adjusted for age and education, were compared with the Qmci screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Caregivers or family scored the QMC. Results: In all, 366 participants were recruited; 53 with subjective memory complaints (SMC), 74 with MCI, 193 with dementia, and 46 normal controls. Median QMC scores for controls were 70±13 versus 60±20 for SMC, 52±18 for MCI, and 31±21 for dementia. The QMC had excellent accuracy (AUC 0.97) for cognitive impairment (MCI/dementia from controls), similar to the Qmci screen (AUC 0.98, p = 0.17) and MoCA (AUC 0.95, p = 0.13). At a cut-off of

Introduction Short cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) are widely used to stratify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is a new, brief ( Methods Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years presenting with cognitive complaints were recruited from two outpatient clinics in Greece. All patients completed the Qmci-Gr and SMMSE and underwent an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment to determine a diagnostic classification. Results In total, 140 patients, median age 75 years, were included; 30 with mild dementia (median SMMSE 23/30), 76 with MCI and 34 with subjective memory complaints (SMC) but normal cognition. The Qmci-Gr had similar accuracy in differentiating SMC from cognitive impairment (MCI & mild dementia) compared with SMMSE, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 versus 0.79, respectively; while accuracy was higher for the Qmci-Gr, this finding was not significantly different, (p = .19). Similarly, the Qmci-Gr had similar accuracy in separating SMC from MCI, AUC of 0.79 versus 0.73 (p = .23). Conclusions The Qmci-Gr compared favorably with the SMMSE. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed to confirm these findings but given its established brevity, it may be a better choice in busy clinical practice in Greece.

Clare Lewis,1 Rónán O’Caoimh,2,3 Declan Patton,1 Tom O’Connor,1 Zena Moore,1 Linda E Nugent1 1School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, Ireland; 2Clinical Sciences Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway City H91 TK33, Ireland; 3Mercy University Hospital, Cork City T12 WE28, IrelandCorrespondence: Clare Lewis Email clare_lewis@health.gov.iePurpose: Population ageing is challenging healthcare systems with limited resources, necessitating the development of new care models to address the needs of older, frail community-dwellers. Community Virtual Wards (CVW) reduce adverse events in these patients. We examined the effect of an established CVW on pre-defined health trajectories (between “stable”, “deteriorating”, and “unstable” states) and characteristics that increased the likelihood of adverse healthcare outcomes (hospitalization, institutionalization and death).Patients and Methods: We collected prospective data on frail patients admitted to a CVW in a single centre in Ireland. Relationships between risk scores, health states and adverse outcomes at 30, 60 and 90 days after admission were examined using multinomial regression analysis.Results: In total, 88 community-dwellers, mean (±SD) age of 82.8 ± 6.4 years, were included. Most were severely frail on the Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (mean 6.8/9 ± 1.33). Reaching stability (“stable” state) within 30 days was a predictor for stability at 60 and 90 days and remaining at home. Stability was also associated with fewer care episodes (< 2) (p=< 0.001), a requirement for fewer healthcare professionals (HCP) (< 7) (p< 0.001) and lower risk of delirium (p< 0.001). By contrast, being “unstable” at 60 days increased the numbers of HCP referrals (> 7) and was predictive of more acute episodes (> 2) and institutionalization or death (p< 0.001). Predictors of adverse outcomes of either institutionalization or death included frailty status, function, mobility, nutrition, pressure ulcer risk and cognition.Conclusion: A CVW model can provide a framework for monitoring and case management to support older people to remain at home or identify those at risk of institutional care. The use of defined health states helped to stratify those at lower or higher risk in an already high-risk frail population. Level of frailty, function, mobility, nutrition, pressure ulcer risks and cognition were predictive of remaining at home and reaching a level of stability or instability/deterioration and institutional care.Keywords: community virtual ward, older persons, complex care, case management, risk prediction, health states

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.

During this unprecedented and ongoing pandemic, the need for healthcare professionals to prognosticate has arguably never been greater (1). Early risk-stratification of older adults admitted with COVID-19 is particularly important to mobilise healthcare professionals to manage their often complex care needs (2). Although frail older adults have higher mortality with COVID-19, given their inherent heterogeneity, predicting outcomes in this population is challenging (3). Multiple scales are available to risk-stratify patients with COVID-19 (4). Despite this, their predictive validity among those who are frail and hence, at highest risk of mortality and critical illness, is not yet established.

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.

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.

ObjectivesThe burden often associated with informal caregiving for patients with dementia is associated with negative effects on health, both physiologically and in terms of caregiver cognition. There is wide variation in the level of burden experienced by dementia caregivers. To better understand caregiver burden, it is thus important to understand the factors associated with level of burden.MethodsIn the current study, we collected carer burden and putative associated factors at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Hierarchical regression was used to assess the impact of these factors on caregiver burden. We assessed self-reported carer burden, patient behavioural and safety issues, and level of difficulty associated with providing assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Patients’ age was also recorded, and trained nurses assessed patient cognitive performance using the quick mild cognitive impairment screen.ResultsAt baseline, patients’ age, cognition and ADLs were associated with burden, and safety and challenging behaviour were both significantly associated with burden independent of the other factors. Change in burden was associated with change in carer-reported safety at 6-month follow-up, and with change in safety and change in carer-reported challenging behaviours at 12-month follow-up.ConclusionsSafety issues and challenging behaviours are associated with carer burden, even after accounting for cognitive and functional impairment in the person with dementia. As dementia progresses, monitoring these factors may help to inform stress-management strategies for caregivers.

Background Multiple instruments are available to screen for frailty in the Emergency Department (ED). Despite this, few studies have compared their predictive validity among older adults attending ED. This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a variety of different short frailty and risk-prediction instruments to predict 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), one-year mortality and institutionalisation. Methods Consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending a university hospital ED were screened and assessed for frailty. Outcomes were obtained from hospital records. The following instruments were compared: the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), PRISMA-7, Identification of Seniors at Risk tool, FRAIL scale, Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC). Results In all, 193 patients were included, median age 79+/-9; 55% were female. Based upon a CGA, 60% (116/193) were classified as frail. Those identified as frail were significantly older (p=0.03) and reported lower quality of life scores (p Conclusion Short frailty screening instruments applied in ED have poor-modest predictive validity for important healthcare outcomes, particularly hospital re-admission. The RISC score had the highest diagnostic accuracy for institutionalisation and death but this was fair at best, suggesting that instrument selection should be pragmatic with the expectation of identifying frailty.

Background Urinary incontinence (UI) is defined by the International Continence Society as “any involuntary leakage of urine.” UI can negatively impact patients' physical and mental wellbeing and quality of life. Since older adults constitute a growing hospital population, evaluation and improvement of this patient group's quality of care is recognized as a priority in the study hospital. A continence assessment helps to determine what the problem is and what management is required. This audit aims to determine whether appropriate assessments of continence in older adults presenting to the hospital setting were completed and documented. Methods An audit tool was adapted from the Royal College of Physicians National Continence Audit tool and the hospital's own elimination documentation pathway. On a chosen day a general medical ward and a specialist geriatric medicine ward were assessed. Medical charts, nursing notes, emergency department proforma, frailty intervention team proforma and skin integrity proforma were reviewed. Documentation of continence status, symptoms, type, investigations, continence wear, catheterisation and management were assessed. Continence care plans and evidence of communication/discussion with patients were also assessed. Results Thirty-one sets of documentation were reviewed. Twenty-four patients were aged over 65. Of these patients 12 were male and 12 were female. Four patients had no continence status documented. Forty-two percent of those reviewed over 65 had documented incontinence and of these only 40% had the elimination section of their nursing proforma fully completed. Six of the patients with documented incontinence had their symptoms/type of incontinence documented. Two Patients had urinary catheters, the indications for these catheters were documented Conclusion This audit found that overall the assessment and documentation of continence in older adults was sub-optimal. Based on this audit an assessment tool and education program will be introduced to the specialist geriatric medicine ward with the goal of improving assessment of continence and optimal management.

Background The Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and the National Clinical Programme for Older People conducted a national survey of Specialist Geriatric Services (SGS) in 2014. The survey was repeated in 2018-2019 period to collect data on the resources available for the care of older people attending hospitals and associated communities in Ireland. Methods Participants were geriatrician leads or proxies in each hospital in Ireland. Questions based on the 2014 survey were updated to include frailty and dementia-delirium specific questions. Data were collected between September 2018 and April 2019 using an electronic survey. Comments from open-ended questions were analysed using qualitative analysis methods. Results In total, 20 fully complete and 18 incomplete responses were received. Most complete responses were from model 3 or 4 hospitals (n= 14/20). Less than half (47%) reported having a dedicated specialist geriatric ward in their institution. Half (50%) reported currently developing an integrated plan for services for frail older people with complex care needs. Barriers to managing frailty that were identified included limited access to funding and staffing. 82% reported that their group/area/unit/department engaged in case-finding for frailty. The most commonly used frailty-specific screening tools were the CFS (n=9), VIP (n=6), FRAIL scale (n=4), and PRISMA-7 (n=3). A National Frailty Education Programme governance structure was operational in 9/20 sites. Half (50%) reported that their hospital has an integrated pathway for people with dementia and/or delirium, although (82%) stated that their hospital does not formally screen all older people for cognitive impairment in the ED/AMAU, and does not formally screen people at risk for delirium on wards on a daily basis (100%). Conclusion Limited staffing and resources were reported for many aspects of SGS in Ireland. Although frailty and dementia-delirium are recognised as priority areas, there is need for standardised assessment and screening approaches.

Background Frailty is associated with a prodromal stage called pre-frailty, a potentially reversible and highly prevalent condition before frailty becomes established. Despite this, there is no widely accepted definition of pre-frailty to support its early identification and management. This study applied an international consensus approach to define and better understand pre-frailty. Methods A modified electronic two-round Delphi Consensus study was conducted. In all, 23 experts from 12 countries with different backgrounds participated. The questionnaire was developed following a systematic literature review. An online consensus meeting was conducted with eight Delphi participants and two external experts. Qualitative and quantitative methods were employed for data analysis. An agreement level of 70% was applied for accepting statements. Results A total of 71 statements were circulated in Round 1. Of these, 52.8% were accepted. Fifty-one statements were re-circulated in Round 2, of which 92.1% were accepted. The online consensus meeting produced a consensus statement describing the concept, multi-factorial nature, and mechanism of pre-frailty as well as assessment, prevention and management approaches. All experts agreed that physical and non-physical factors such as psychological and social capacity are involved in the development of pre-frailty, potentially adversely affecting health and health-related quality of life outcomes. Practitioners should regard pre-frailty as a multi-factorial, multi-dimensional, and non-linear process that does not inevitably lead to frailty. It might be reversed or attenuated by targeted interventions. Brief, feasible and validated tools are recommended for opportunistic screening or case-finding followed by confirmation with multi-dimensional assessment. Conclusion It is difficult to establish consensus on one compact definition of pre-frailty, which is a multi-dimensional concept not only associated with physical impairment, but also with cognitive, nutritional, socioeconomic and other aspects of frailty. However, it may be too early to agree on an operational definition of pre-frailty since none yet exists for frailty.

Background Frailty is a multi-factorial, age-related syndrome, often defined in terms of accumulation of deficits. This approach uses the proportion of a list of age-associated items (signs, symptoms, diseases, impairments, etc.) available to identify frailty. Some frailty indexes (FI) include more functional aspects than others. This study examines whether functional components and diseases or risk factors predict the same phenomena. Methods Data were included from The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) wave seven for participants age ≥50 years. A 52-item FI was constructed from physical health data with 26 functional and 26 non-functional items. Functional items were obtained from activities of daily living questions (ph048 & ph049), and health-related activity limitation (gali question). Non-functional items were obtained from questions on BMI, self-perceived health, disease/risks (ph006), medication use (sleep, anxiety/depression, osteoporosis), and frailty related symptoms (ph048). Participants missing one or more of the 52 items were excluded. Data were analysed at individual and country-level to assess for significant differences. Results In total, 73,510 (97.3%) participants had complete frailty data available and were included. The mean score for the FI-52 was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11-0.12). Mean FI scores for the functional and non-functional components were 0.12 (95% CI:0.12-0.12) and 0.11 (95% CI:0.11-0.11), respectively, representing a significant difference (p Conclusion Findings suggest that having more functional items in a frailty index results in significantly higher frailty estimates but this only amounted to an approximately 5% difference. Although moderate-strong correlation was observed, further research is needed to investigate if the proportion of functional components influences risk-prediction at population-level.

Background Sleep disturbance is common in hospital, potentially resulting in poor clinical outcomes. Frailty is similarly prevalent and associated with multiple adverse events. Despite this, little is known about the interaction between frailty and sleep among older hospital inpatients. Methods Consecutive, non-critically ill patients aged ≥70, admitted medically through a large university hospital emergency department (ED) during the preceding 24 hours, were evaluated with measures assessing overnight sleep quality (Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire/RCSQ), baseline sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index/PSQI) and insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index/ISI). Additional variables included medications, frailty (PRISMA-7 scores ≥3 and Clinical Frailty Scale/CFS scores ≥5), functional and cognitive status, and night-time noise levels. Patients were reassessed 48 hours later. Results Over four weeks, 152 patients, mean age 80 (±6.8) years were included; 61% were male (n=92). In all, 43% were frail (mean CFS score 4.23±1.6), median PRISMA-7 score 4±4; a further 24% were pre-frail. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 6±2. The majority, 72% (110/152), reported impaired baseline sleep quality (PSQI ≥5) and 13% (20/152) had clinical insomnia (ISI ≥15). The median time spent in ED was 23±13 hours, median duration asleep was only one hour (range 0-8). After adjusting for possible confounders, frailty status was significantly associated with lower PSQI (p Conclusion The prevalence of sleep disturbance and clinical insomnia among older adults admitted through ED is high and overnight sleep quality low, although these did not impact on LOS or 30-day re-admission rates. Frail patients reported significantly poorer baseline sleep but did not have higher rates of insomnia or experience worse overnight sleep.

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: Although caregiver burden is common among carers of people with dementia, little is known about its prevalence and predictors among caregivers of patients attending memory clinics. Objective: To examine carer and patient-specific characteristics associated with caregiver burden across the cognitive spectrum in a memory clinic population. Methods: Consecutive patients referred to a university hospital geriatric memory clinic were included. Caregiver burden was scored using the Caregiver Burden Score (CBS), (modified Zarit), with scores≥15/30 suggesting burden. BPSD were measured with the dysfunctional behaviour rating instrument (DBRI). Cognition was screened using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen. Results: In all, 351 patients were included, median age 77 (±11) years; 65.5% were female. The prevalence of caregiver burden was 33.6% overall, increasing from 10.8% in subjective cognitive decline (SCD), to 15% in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 43% in dementia; CBS scores were significantly higher in dementia (p

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

Aims: To assess the impact of diabetes and frailty on self-rated health, depressive symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Methods: Data were pooled for participants aged ≥50 years from five waves of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Measures included diabetes (self-reported), physical frailty (≥3/5 criteria), low self-rated health (SRH; “poor” or “fair”), depression (screened using the EURO-D ≥4) and low QoL (CASP-12

Background: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected older people. Visiting restrictions introduced since the start of the pandemic in residential care facilities (RCFs) may impact negatively on visitors including close family, friends, and guardians. We examined the effects of COVID-19 visiting restrictions on measures of perceived loneliness, well-being, and carer quality of life (QoL) amongst visitors of residents with and without cognitive impairment (CI) in Irish RCFs. Methods: We created a cross-sectional online survey. Loneliness was measured with the UCLA brief loneliness scale, psychological well-being with the WHO-5 Well-being Index and carer QoL with the Adult Carer QoL Questionnaire (support for caring subscale). Satisfaction with care (“increased/same” and “decreased”) was measured. A history of CI was reported by respondents. Sampling was by convenience with the link circulated through university mail lists and targeted social media accounts for 2 weeks in June 2020. Results: In all, 225 responses were included of which 202 noted whether residents had reported CI. Most of the 202 identified themselves as immediate family (91%) and as female (82%). The majority (67%) were aged between 45 and 64 years. Most (80%) reported that their resident had CI. Approximately one-third indicated reduced satisfaction (27%) or that restrictions had impaired communication with nursing home staff (38%). Median loneliness scores were 4/9, well-being scores 60/100 and carer QoL scores 10/15. Visitors of those with CI reported significantly lower well-being (p = 0.006) but no difference in loneliness (p = 0.114) or QoL (p = 0.305). Reported CI (p = 0.04) remained an independent predictors of lower WHO-5 scores, after adjusting for age, sex, RCF location, and dementia stage (advanced), satisfaction with care (reduced), and perception of staff support measured on the Adult Carer QoL Questionnaire. Conclusion: This survey suggests that many RCF visitors experienced low psychosocial and emotional well-being during the COVID-19 lockdown. Visitors of residents with CI report significantly poorer well-being as measured by the WHO-5 than those without. Additional research is required to understand the importance of disrupted caregiving roles resulting from visiting restrictions on well-being, particularly on visitors of residents with CI and how RCFs and their staff can support visitors to mitigate these.

BACKGROUND Burden of disease (BoD) using disability-adjusted life years (DALY) is a useful summary measure of population health and estimates are provided for Ireland annually. We hypothesized that BoD may be used as a predictor of frailty prevalence. AIM To examine the correlation between frailty measured by the accumulation of deficits (frailty index, FI) and Fried frailty phenotype (FFP) classifications and BoD, in an Irish context. DESIGN Cross-sectional secondary analysis. METHODS Data were obtained from waves two and three of The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe for Irish adults aged ≥65 in 2007. Frailty was defined by a 70-item FI and the FFP. Years lived with disability (YLD), years of life lost (YLL) and DALY were calculated using adapted equations from the World Health Organization and, where possible, disability weights, sequelae and durations as in the Global BoD (GBD) project (2016). RESULTS Of 1035 participants, 442 were ≥65 years. Mean DALY were significantly higher in those identified as frail (FI: 3.31, P < 0.0001, n = 406; FFP: 2.46, P = 0.005, n = 319). For the FI, stronger correlation was found for DALY (r = 0.5431, P < 0.0001) than for age (r = 0.275, P < 0.0001). Controlling for confounders, DALY were an independent predictor of frailty when measured with the FI (OR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.10-1.24) but not with the FFP (OR 1.079, 95%% CI 1.00-1.17). CONCLUSIONS Frailty correlates significantly with DALY, and more so with the FI than the FFP, reaffirming that these measures are different constructs. GBD data could represent a predictor of population-level frailty estimates, facilitating improved comparisons.

Journal article Aims: As populations age there is an increased demand for nursing home (NH) care and a parallel increase in the prevalence of diabetes. Despite this, there is growing evidence that the management of diabetes in NHs is suboptimal. The reasons for this are complex and poorly understood. This study aimed to identify the current level of diabetes care in NHs using a mixed methods approach. Methods: The nursing managers at all 44 NHs in County Galway in the West of Ireland were invited to participate. A mixed methods approach involved a postal survey, focus group and telephone interviews. Results: The survey response rate was 75% (33/44) and 27% (9/33) of nursing managers participated in the qualitative research. The reported prevalence of diagnosed diabetes was 14% with 80% of NHs treating residents with insulin. Hypoglycaemia was reported as ‘frequent’ in 19% of NHs. A total of 36% of NHs have staff who have received diabetes education or training and 56% have access to diabetes care guidelines. Staff education was the most cited opportunity for improving diabetes care. Focus group and interview findings highlight variations in the level of support provided by GPs and access to dietetic, podiatry and retinal screening services. Conclusions: There is a need for national clinical guidelines and standards of care for diabetes management in nursing homes, improved access to quality diabetes education for NH staff, and greater integration between healthcare services and NHs to ensure equity, continuity and quality in diabetes care delivery. "This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors." peer-reviewed 2018-03-21

Objectives: Brief screening instruments are useful in busy clinical practice to identify those requiring further assessment. This study aims to translate and validate a Portuguese version of the fo...

Introduction The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity. Methods PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model. Results In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11–13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45–48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46–52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14–17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10–12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24–35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16–24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5–9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 44) for FIs. Conclusions Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates. Protocol registration PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.

Non-communicable chronic diseases (NCCDs) are the main cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Demographic aging has resulted in older populations with more complex healthcare needs. This necessitates a multilevel rethinking of healthcare policies, health education and community support systems with digitalization of technologies playing a central role. The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Aging (A3) working group focuses on well-being for older adults, with an emphasis on quality of life and healthy aging. A subgroup of A3, including multidisciplinary stakeholders in health care across Europe, focuses on the palliative care (PC) model as a paradigm to be modified to meet the needs of older persons with NCCDs. This development paper delineates the key parameters we identified as critical in creating a public health model of PC directed to the needs of persons with NCCDs. This paradigm shift should affect horizontal components of public health models. Furthermore, our model includes vertical components often neglected, such as nutrition, resilience, well-being and leisure activities. The main enablers identified are information and communication technologies, education and training programs, communities of compassion, twinning activities, promoting research and increasing awareness amongst policymakers. We also identified key ‘bottlenecks’: inequity of access, insufficient research, inadequate development of advance care planning and a lack of co-creation of relevant technologies and shared decision-making. Rethinking PC within a public health context must focus on developing policies, training and technologies to enhance person-centered quality life for those with NCCD, while ensuring that they and those important to them experience death with dignity.

Assessment of cognitive impairment is a common requirement in clinical practice, especially in geriatric medicine. The use of valid, reliable, and brief tests of cognitive function is vital in determining the need for further investigations of symptomatic patients. Such tests are also important in population screening, albeit the benefits of this are yet unproven. A number of brief cognitive screening instruments are used in clinical practice but none meets all the requirements across the spectrum of clinical practice, able to separate subjective deficits from mild cognitive impairment and dementia across all subtypes. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen has been validated in multiple clinical settings and countries. It has similar accuracy compared with the commonly used Montreal Cognitive Assessment and is more accurate than the Mini-Mental State Examination in differentiating those with normal cognitive function and cognitive impairment. The short time requirement for administering the Qmci screen makes it suitable for doctors in busy clinical practice.

Background: Although required to improve the usability of cognitive screening instruments (CSIs), the use of cut-off scores is controversial yet poorly researched. Objective: To explore cut-off scores for two short CSIs: the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, describing adjustments in scores for diagnosis (MCI or dementia), age ( 75 years), and education (= 12 years), comparing two methods: the maximal accuracy approach, derived from receiver operating characteristic curves, and Youden's Index. Methods: Pooled analysis of assessments from patients attending memory clinics in Canada between 1999-2010 : 766 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 1,746 with dementia, and 875 normal controls. Results: The Qmci was more accurate than the SMMSE in differentiating controls from MCI or cognitive impairment (MCI and dementia). Employing the maximal accuracy approach, the optimal SMMSE cut-off for cognitive impairment was < 28/30 (AUC 0.86, sensitivity 74%, specificity 88%) versus < 63/100 for the Qmci (AUC 0.93, sensitivity 85%, specificity 85%). Using Youden's Index, the optimal SMMSE cut-off remained < 28/30 but fell slightly to < 62/100 for the Qmci (sensitivity 83%, specificity 87%). The optimal cut-off for MCI was < 29/30 for the SMMSE and < 67/100 for the Qmci, irrespective of technique. The maximal accuracy approach generally produced higher Qmci cut-offs than Youden's Index, both requiring adjustment for age and education. There were no clinically meaningful differences in SMMSE cut- off scores by age and education or method employed. Conclusion: Caution should be exercised selecting cut-offs as these differ by age, education, and method of derivation, with the extent of adjustment varying between CSIs.

Background: A high prevalence of cognitive impairment and frailty complicates the feasibility of advance care planning in the long-term-care population. Research aim: To identify challenges in implementing the ‘Let Me Decide’ advance care planning programme in long-term-care. Research design: This feasibility study had two phases: (1) staff education on advance care planning and (2) structured advance care planning by staff with residents and families. Participants and research context: long-term-care residents in two nursing homes and one community hospital. Ethical considerations: The local research ethics committee granted ethical approval. Findings: Following implementation, over 50% of all residents had completed some form of end-of-life care plan. Of the 70 residents who died in the post-implementation period, 14% had no care plan, 10% (with capacity) completed an advance care directive and lacking such capacity, 76% had an end-of-life care plan completed for them by the medical team, following discussions with the resident (if able) and family. The considerable logistical challenge of releasing staff for training triggered development of an e-learning programme to facilitate training. Discussion: The challenges encountered were largely concerned with preserving resident’s autonomy, avoiding harm and suboptimal or crisis decision-making, and ensuring residents were treated fairly through optimisation of finite resources. Conclusions: Although it may be too late for many long-term-care residents to complete their own advance care directive, the ‘ Let Me Decide’ programme includes a feasible and acceptable option for structured end-of-life care planning for residents with variable capacity to complete an advance care directive, involving discussion with the resident (to the extent they were able) and their family. While end-of-life care planning was time-consuming to deliver, nursing staff were willing to overcome this and take ownership of the programme, once the benefits in improved communication and enhanced peace of mind among all parties involved became apparent in practice.

Advance care planning (ACP), involving discussions between patients, families and healthcare professionals on future healthcare decisions, in advance of anticipated impairment in decision-making capacity, improves satisfaction and end-of-life care while respecting patient autonomy. It usually results in the creation of a written advanced care directive (ACD). This systematic review examines the impact of ACP on several outcomes (including symptom management, quality of care and healthcare utilisation) in older adults (>65years) across all healthcare settings. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searches of the CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane databases. A total of 3646 older adults were included (range 72-88 years). Seven studies were conducted with community dwellers and the other two RCTs were conducted in nursing homes. Most studies did not implement a standardised ACD, or measure the impact on quality of end-of-life care or on the death and dying experience. All studies had some risk of bias, with most scoring poorly on the Oxford Quality Scale. While ACP interventions are well received by older adults and generally have positive effects on outcomes, this review highlights the need for well-designed RCTs that examine the economic impact of ACP and its effect on quality of care in nursing homes and other sectors.

Introduction The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. Methods Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. Results Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/−19), 52.5 (+/−12) and 36 (+/−14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/−5), 22 (+/−4) and 15 (+/−7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23). Conclusion While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.