Search

Objective: To find consensus on appropriate and feasible structure, process and outcome indicators for the evaluation of in-hospital geriatric co-management programmes., Design: An international two-round Delphi study based on a systematic literature review (searching databases, reference lists, prospective citations and trial registers)., Setting: Western Europe and the USA., Participants: Thirty-three people with at least 2 years of clinical experience in geriatric co-management were recruited. Twenty-eight experts (16 from the USA and 12 from Europe) participated in both Delphi rounds (85% response rate)., Measures: Participants rated the indicators on a nine-point scale for their (1) appropriateness and (2) feasibility to use the indicator for the evaluation of geriatric co-management programmes. Indicators were considered appropriate and feasible based on a median score of seven or higher. Consensus was based on the level of agreement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method., Results: In the first round containing 37 indicators, there was consensus on 14 indicators. In the second round containing 44 indicators, there was consensus on 31 indicators (structure=8, process=7, outcome=16). Experts indicated that co-management should start within 24 hours of hospital admission using defined criteria for selecting appropriate patients. Programmes should focus on the prevention and management of geriatric syndromes and complications. Key areas for comprehensive geriatric assessment included cognition/delirium, functionality/mobility, falls, pain, medication and pressure ulcers. Key outcomes for evaluating the programme included length of stay, time to surgery and the incidence of complications., Conclusion: The indicators can be used to assess the performance of geriatric co-management programmes and identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, the indicators can be used to monitor the implementation and effect of these programmes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DAM was co-PI of a John A Hartford Foundation grant for pilot study to disseminate geriatric co-management programmes (8/2015–8/2016). DAM is Secretary of the Board of the International Geriatric Fracture Society (IGFS). JF received honoraria for consultancy services to pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer, GSK, SPMSD). All other authors report no potential conflict of interest., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: geriatric consultation teams have failed to impact clinical outcomes prompting geriatric co-management programmes to emerge as a promising strategy to manage frail patients on non-geriatric wards., Objective: to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of in-hospital geriatric co-management., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 6 May 2016. Reference lists, trial registers and PubMed Central Citations were additionally searched., Study Selection: randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of in-hospital patients included in a geriatric co-management study. Two investigators performed the selection process independently., Data Extraction: standardised data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by two investigators., Results: twelve studies and 3,590 patients were included from six randomised and six quasi-experimental studies. Geriatric co-management improved functional status and reduced the number of patients with complications in three of the four studies, but studies had a high risk of bias and outcomes were measured heterogeneously and could not be pooled. Co-management reduced the length of stay (pooled mean difference, -1.88 days [95% CI, -2.44 to -1.33]; 11 studies) and may reduce in-hospital mortality (pooled odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.50-1.03]; 7 studies). Meta-analysis identified no effect on the number of patients discharged home (5 studies), post-discharge mortality (3 studies) and readmission rate (4 studies)., Conclusions: there was low-quality evidence of a reduced length of stay and a reduced number of patients with complications, and very low-quality evidence of better functional status as a result of geriatric co-management., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background and Objectives: Interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams are implemented in the acute hospital setting in several high-income countries to provide comprehensive geriatric assessment for the increasing numbers of older patients with a geriatric profile hospitalized on non-geriatric units. Given the inconclusive evidence on this care model's effectiveness to improve patient outcomes, health care policy and practice oriented recommendations to redesign the structure and process of care provided by interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams are needed. A scoping review was conducted to explore the structure and processes of interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams in an international context. As nurses are considered key members of these teams, their roles and responsibilities were specifically explored., Design: The revised scoping methodology framework of Arksey and O'Malley was applied., Data Sources: An electronic database search in Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE and a hand search were performed for the identification of descriptive and experimental studies published in English, French or Dutch until April 2014., Review Methods: Thematic reporting with descriptive statistics was performed and study findings were validated through interdisciplinary expert meetings., Results: Forty-six papers reporting on 25 distinct interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams in eight countries across three continents were included. Eight of the 12 teams (67%) reporting on their composition, stated that nurses and physicians were the main core members with head counts varying from 1 to 4 members per profession. In 80% of these teams nurses were required to have completed training in geriatrics. Advanced practice nurses were integrated in eleven out of fourteen interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams from the USA. Only 32% of teams used formal screening to identify patients most likely to benefit from their intervention, using heterogeneous screening methods, and scarcely providing information on the responsibilities of nurses. Nurses were involved in the medical, functional, psychological and social assessment of patients in 68% of teams, either in a leading role or in collaboration with other professions. Responsibilities of interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams' nurses regarding in-hospital follow-up or transitional care at hospital discharge were infrequently specified (16% of teams)., Conclusions: This scoping review identified that the structure and processes of care provided to geriatric patients by interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams are highly heterogeneous. Despite nurses being key team members, only limited information on their specific roles and responsibilities was identified. More research in this area is required in order to inform health care policy and to formulate practice oriented recommendations to redesign the interdisciplinary geriatric consultation team care model aiming to improve its effectiveness., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer., Methods: SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care., Results: GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another., Conclusion: There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

Background: About 40% of all adverse events in hospital are falls, but only about one in three Belgian hospitals have a fall prevention policy in place. The implementation of a national practice guideline is urgently needed., Objective and Design: This multicentre study aimed to determine the feasibility of a previously developed guideline. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD: Seventeen geriatric wards, selected at random out of 40 Belgian hospitals who agreed to take part in the study, evaluated the fall prevention guideline. After the one-month test period, 49 healthcare workers completed a questionnaire on the feasibility of the guideline., Results: At the end of the study, 512 geriatric patients had been assessed using the practice guideline. The average time spent per patient on case finding, multifactorial assessment and initiating a treatment plan was 5.1, 76.1 and 30.6 min, respectively. For most risk assessments and risk modifications, several disciplines considered themselves as being responsible and capable. The majority (more than 69%) of the respondents judged the practice guideline as useful, but only a small majority (62.3%) believed that the guideline could be successfully integrated into their daily practice over a longer period of time. Barriers for implementation included a large time investment (81.1%), lack of communication between the different disciplines (35.8%), lack of motivation of the patient (34.0%), lack of multidisciplinary teamwork (28.3%), and lack of interest from the hospital management (15.4%)., Conclusion: Overall, the guideline was found useful, and for each risk factor (except for visual impairment), at least one discipline felt responsible and capable. Towards future implementation of the guideline, following steps should be considered: division of the risk-factor assessment duties and interventions among different healthcare workers; patient education; appointment of a fall prevention coordinator; development of a fall prevention policy with support from the management of the hospital., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Comparison of the first-generation Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the third-generation interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC)., Design: Based on a qualitative multiphase exchange of expert opinion, published evidence was critically analyzed and translated into a consensus., Results: Both methods are intended for a multi-domain geriatric assessment in acute hospital settings, but each with a different scope and goal. MGST contains a collection of single-domain, internationally validated instruments. Assessment is usually triggered by care givers' clinical impression based on geriatric expertise. A limited selection of domains is usually assessed only once, by disciplines with domain-specific expertise. Clinical use results in improvement to screen geriatric problems. InterRAI AC, tailored for acute settings, intends to screen a large number of geriatric domains. Based on systematic observational data, risk domains are triggered and clinical guidelines are suggested. Multiple observation periods outline the evolution of patients' functioning over stay in comparison to the premorbid situation. The method is appropriate for application on geriatric and non-geriatric wards, filling geriatric knowledge gaps. The interRAI Suite contains a common set of standardized items across settings, facilitating data transfer in transitional care., Conclusion: The third-generation interRAI AC has advantages compared to the first-generation MGST. A cascade system is proposed to integrate both, complementary methods in practice. The systematic interRAI AC assessment detects risk domains. Subsequently, clinical protocols suggest components of the MGST as additional assessment. This cascade approach unites the strength of exhaustive assessment of the interRAI AC with domain-specific tools of the MGST.

This article describes the rationale, implementation, interventions and preliminary findings of a Belgian interdisciplinary internal liaison team in a 1470-bed teaching hospital. The motive to start the team was threefold: the ageing of the inhospital population, the conclusion that health care professionals working on non-geriatric wards often lack the necessary skills to deal with older patients' needs and Belgian law, obliging each general hospital to set up an internal liaison team. Our team aims at detecting geriatric patients at risk, assisting health care professionals in caring for older patients and sensitizing them regarding optimal geriatric care. The article explains the underlying philosophy and strategy for implementation, focusing on the concepts of reciprocity, flexibility and cooperation. The preliminary results are based on a process evaluation of 719 consultations carried out from November 2004 to November 2006, a time registration, and a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis (SWOT). Although our data are preliminary and the implementation of the team was pragmatic rather than research driven, they provide insight into the development, implementation, functioning and interventions of a Belgian interdisciplinary internal liaison team.

A progressive decline in physiologic reserves inevitably occurs with ageing. Frailty results from reaching a threshold of decline across multiple organ systems. By consequence, frail elderly experience an excess vulnerability to stressors and are at high risk for functional deficits and comorbid disorders, possibly leading to institutionalization, hospitalization and death. The phenotype of frailty is referred to as the frailty syndrome and is widely recognized in geriatric medical practice. Although frailty affects both musculoskeletal and nonmusculoskeletal systems, sarcopenia, which is defined as age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, constitutes one of the main determinants of fracture risk in older age and one of the main components of the clinical frailty syndrome. As a result, operational definitions of frailty and therapeutic strategies in older patients tend to focus on the consequences of sarcopenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The interRAI Suite contains comprehensive geriatric assessment tools designed for various healthcare settings. Although each instrument is developed for a particular population, together they form an integrated health evaluation system. The interRAI Acute Care Minimum Data Set (interRAI AC) is tailored for hospitalized older persons. Our aim in this study was to translate and adapt the interRAI AC to the Belgian hospital context, where it can be used together with the interRAI Home Care (HC) and the interRAI Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). Methods A systematic, comprehensive, and rigorous 10-step approach was used to adapt the interRAI AC to local requirements. After linguistic translation by an official translator, five researchers assessed the translation for appropriate hospital jargon. Three researchers double-checked for translation accuracy and proposed additional items. A provisional version was converted into the three official languages of Belgium—Flemish, French, and German. Next, a multidisciplinary panel of nine experts judged item relevance to the Belgian care context and advised which country-specific items should be added. After these suggestions were incorporated into the interRAI AC, hospital staff from nine Flemish hospitals field-tested the tool in their practice. After evaluating field-test results, we compared the interRAI AC with Belgian versions of the interRAI HC and interRAI LTCF. Next, the Flemish, French, and German versions of the Belgian interRAI portfolio were harmonized. Finally, we submitted the Belgian interRAI AC to the interRAI organization for ratification. Results Eighteen administrative items of the interRAI AC were adapted to the Belgian healthcare context (e.g., usual residence, formal community services prior to admission). Fourteen items assessing the ‘informal caregiver’, and 17 items, including country-specific items, were added (e.g., advanced directive for euthanasia). Conclusions The interRAI AC was adapted to local requirements using a meticulous and recursive 10-step approach. As use of the interRAI Suite continues to grow worldwide and as it continues to expand to other care settings and populations, this procedure can guide future translations. This procedure might also be used by others facing similar challenges of complex translation and adaptation situations, where multidimensional instruments are used across multiple care settings in multiple languages.

Abstract Background The purpose of this correspondence article is to report opinion amongst experts in the delirium field as to why, despite on-going training for all health professionals, delirium continues to be under recognised. Consensus was obtained by means of two conference workshops and an online survey of members of the European Delirium Association. Major barriers to recognition at an individual level include ignorance about the benefit of treating delirium. At an organisational level, reflecting socio-cultural attitudes, barriers include a low strategic and financial priority and the fact that delirium is an orphan condition falling between specialties.