Search

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written--and if possible published--before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: moving into long-term institutional care is a significant life event for any individual. Predictors of institutional care admission from community-dwellers and people with dementia have been described, but those from the acute hospital setting have not been systematically reviewed. Our aim was to establish predictive factors for discharge to institutional care following acute hospitalisation. Methods: we registered and conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015023497). We searched MEDLINE; EMBASE and CINAHL Plus in September 2015. We included observational studies of patients admitted directly to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation where factors associated with institutionalisation were reported. Results: from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). Studies were heterogeneous, with the proportions discharged to a care home 3-77% (median 15%). Eleven studies (n = 12,642), of moderate to low quality, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The need for institutional long-term care was associated with age (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.00-1.04), female sex (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.92), dementia (pooled OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24-3.70) and functional dependency (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.58-2.69). Conclusions: discharge to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation is common, but current data do not allow prediction of who will make this transition. Potentially important predictors evaluated in community cohorts have not been examined in hospitalised cohorts. Understanding these predictors could help identify individuals at risk early in their admission, and support them in this transition or potentially intervene to reduce their risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice. We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, nonrandomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools. We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review - along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: institutionalisation following acute hospital admission is common and yet poorly described, with policy documents advising against this transition. Objective: to characterise the individuals admitted to a care home on discharge from an acute hospital admission and to describe their assessment. Design and setting: a retrospective cohort study of people admitted to a single large Scottish teaching hospital. Subjects: 100 individuals admitted to the acute hospital from home and discharged to a care home. Methods: a single researcher extracted data from ward-based case notes. Results: people discharged to care homes were predominantly female (62%), widowed (52%) older adults (mean 83.6 years) who lived alone (67%). About 95% had a diagnosed cognitive disorder or evidence of cognitive impairment. One-third of cases of delirium were unrecognised. Hospital stays were long (median 78.5 days; range 14-231 days) and transfers between settings were common. Family request, dementia, mobility, falls risk and behavioural concerns were the commonest reasons for the decision to admit to a care home. About 55% were in the acute hospital when the decision for a care home was made and 44% of that group were discharged directly from the acute hospital. Conclusions: care home admission from hospital is common and yet there are no established standards to support best practice. Decisions should involve the whole multidisciplinary team in partnership with patients and families. Documentation of assessment in the case notes is variable. We advocate the development of interdisciplinary standards to support the assessment of this vulnerable and complex group of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK has many excellent care homes that provide high-quality care for their residents; however, across the care home sector, there is a significant need for improvement. Even though the majority of care homes receive a rating of 'good' from regulators, still significant numbers are identified as requiring 'improvement' or are 'inadequate'. Such findings resonate with the public perceptions of long-term care as a negative choice, to be avoided wherever possible--as well as impacting on the career choices of health and social care students. Projections of current demographics highlight that, within 10 years, the part of our population that will be growing the fastest will be those people older than 80 years old with the suggestion that spending on long-term care provision needs to rise from 0.6% of our Gross Domestic Product in 2002 to 0.96% by 2031. Teaching/research-based care homes have been developed in the USA, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia in response to scandals about care, and the shortage of trained geriatric healthcare staff. There is increasing evidence that such facilities help to reduce inappropriate hospital admissions, increase staff competency and bring increased enthusiasm about working in care homes and improve the quality of care. Is this something that the UK should think of developing? This commentary details the core goals of a Care Home Innovation Centre for training and research as a radical vision to change the culture and image of care homes, and help address this huge public health issue we face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal management of hypertension in people with dementia is uncertain. This review explores if people with dementia experience greater adverse effects from antihypertensive medications, if cognitive function is protected or worsened by controlling blood pressure (BP) and if there are subgroups of people with dementia for whom antihypertensive therapy is more likely to be harmful. Robust evidence is scant, trials of antihypertensive medications have generally excluded those with dementia. Observational data show changes in risk association over the life course, with high BP being a risk factor for cognitive decline in mid-life, while low BP is predictive in later life. It is therefore possible that excessive BP lowering in older people with dementia might harm cognition. From the existing literature, there is no direct evidence of benefit or harm from treating hypertension in people with dementia. So what practical steps can the clinician take? Assess capacity, establish patient preferences when making treatment decisions, use ambulatory monitoring to thoroughly assess BP, individualise and consider deprescribing where side effects (e.g. hypotension) outweigh the benefits. Future research might include pragmatic randomised trials of targeted deprescribing, which include patient-centred outcome measures to help support decision-making and studies to address mechanistic uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) may be helpful for the management of hypertension, but little is known about its tolerability in people with dementia. Objective: to review the published evidence to determine the tolerability of ABPM in people with dementia. Methods: English language search conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE, using Ambulatory blood pressure' AND 'Dementia' (and associated synonyms) from 1996 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria: people diagnosed with dementia AND in whom blood pressure was measured using ABPM. The initial search was undertaken using title and abstract reviews, with selected papers being agreed for inclusion by two reviewers. Potentially eligible papers were assessed, and high-quality papers were retained. Two reviewers agreed the abstracted data for analysis. Meta-analysis was used to combine results across studies. Results: of the 221 screened abstracts, 13 studies (6%) met inclusion criteria, 5 had sufficient data and were of sufficient quality, involving 461 participants, most of whom had mild--moderate dementia. 77.7% (95% CI 62.2-93.2%) were able to tolerate ABPM; agreement with office BP was moderate to weak (two studies only--coefficients 0.3-0.38 for systolic blood pressure and 0.11-0.32 for diastolic blood pressure). One study compared home BP monitoring by a relative or ambulatory BP monitoring with office BP measures and found high agreement (ϗ 0.81). The little available evidence suggested increased levels of dementia being associated with reduced tolerability. Conclusions: ABPM is well tolerated in people with mild-moderate dementia and provides some additional information over and above office BP alone. However, few studies have addressed ABPM in people with more severe dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frailty is a distinctive late-life health state in which apparently minor stressor events are associated with adverse health outcomes. This article considers how the conceptualisation of frailty as a long-term condition offers new management approaches based on systematically applied preventative and proactive interventions. Frailty shares the key features of the common longterm conditions: it can be ameliorated but not cured; it is costly at an individual and societal level; it is progressive; it impacts adversely on life experience and it has episodic crises. The recognition of frailty as a long-term condition is not merely a semantic issue—a wide range of benefits can be anticipated. Primary care-based registers for frailty could be established and chronic disease models applied systematically for co-ordinated and person-centred preventative and proactive care. A team approach is a key component of long-term condition management, incorporating support, follow-up and behaviour change interventions that go beyond the scope of a traditional medical approach. This approach would ideally require changes in secondary care to embrace greater community-based working and closer relationships with the primary health and care team. Although our understanding of interventions to modify or treat frailty has improved, there is considerable scope for further development. Identifying frailty as a long-term condition would be an important step in distinguishing people with frailty as a discrete population for new research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives: delirium is a distressing but potentially preventable condition common in older people in long-term care. It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, functional decline, hospitalization and significant healthcare costs. Multicomponent interventions, addressing delirium risk factors, have been shown to reduce delirium by one-third in hospitals. It is not known whether this approach is also effective in long-term care. In previous work, we designed a bespoke delirium prevention intervention, called 'Stop Delirium!' In preparation for a definitive trial of Stop Delirium, we sought to address key aspects of trial design for the particular circumstances of care homes. Design: a cluster randomized feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation. Setting and participants: residents of 14 care homes for older people in one metropolitan district in the UK. Intervention: Stop Delirium!: a 16-month-enhanced educational package to support care home staff to address key delirium risk factors. Control homes received usual care. Measurements: we collected data to determine the following: recruitment and attrition; delirium rates and variability between homes; feasibility of measuring delirium, resource use, quality of life, hospital admissions and falls; and intervention implementation and adherence. Results: two-thirds (215) of eligible care home residents were recruited. One-month delirium prevalence was 4.0% in intervention and 7.1% in control homes. Proposed outcome measurements were feasible, although our approach appeared to underestimate delirium. Health economic evaluation was feasible using routinely collected data. Conclusion: a definitive trial of delirium prevention in long-term care is needed but will require some further design modifications and pilot work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]