Search

Introduction: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (known as 'myositis') are a group of rare sporadic inflammatory muscle disorders that significantly impact function and quality of life. There are no standardised approaches in the use of assistive technologies in myositis. This study was initiated to investigate current use and perceived value of assistive technology (AT) by people with myositis., Methods: A cross-sectional online questionnaire (Qualtrics) was designed to capture information regarding AT use and perceived value and demographic information from people with myositis across Australia. The questionnaire was distributed via the Myositis Association of Australia and specialist myositis clinics. Participants were asked to identify which AT items they owned and how frequently the item was used and to rate the 'usefulness' of those items. Information was also collected on participants' engagement with health professionals regarding assistive technologies., Consumer and Community Involvement: Consumer involvement via the Myositis Research Consumer Panel identified a knowledge gap regarding AT. The questionnaire was designed with consumer input and review., Results: One hundred two people (102) with myositis completed the questionnaire. One hundred (100) participants owned at least one AT device, with a median of 12.5 items and a maximum of 65 items. The most used devices were associated with toileting, personal care and mobility. Participants rated AT devices relating to environmental support, sleeping, seating and body support as most useful. There was a positive correlation between disease duration and number of devices used (r 2  = 0.248, p = 0.012). Majority of participants (75.5%) were interested in talking to health professionals about AT; however, only 50% had done so., Conclusion: AT device usage is high among people with myositis, with most items deemed to be useful. Greater occupational therapy input into recommendations and potential funding options may improve knowledge and access to AT., (© 2024 The Authors. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Occupational Therapy Australia.)

Introduction: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study., Methods: A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors., Results: In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include., Conclusions: Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)