Search

IntroductionFrailty is one of the most challenging aspects of population ageing due to its association with increased risk of poor health outcomes and quality of life. General practice provides an ideal setting for the prevention and management of frailty via the implementation of preventive measures such as early identification through screening.Methods and analysisOur study will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and diagnostic test accuracy of several screening instruments in diagnosing frailty among community-dwelling Australians aged 75+ years who have recently made an appointment to see their general practitioner (GP). We will recruit 240 participants across 2 general practice sites within South Australia. We will invite eligible patients to participate and consent to the study via mail. Consenting participants will attend a screening appointment to undertake the index tests: 2 self-reported (Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) and 5 (Frail Scale, Groningen Frailty Index, Program on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA-7), Edmonton Frail Scale and Gait Speed Test) administered by a practice nurse (a Registered Nurse working in general practice). We will randomise test order to reduce bias. Psychosocial measures will also be collected via questionnaire at the appointment. A blinded researcher will then administer two reference standards (the Frailty Phenotype and Adelaide Frailty Index). We will determine frailty by a cut-point of 3 of 5 criteria for the Phenotype and 9 of 42 items for the AFI. We will determine accuracy by analysis of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. We will assess feasibility and acceptability by: 1) collecting data about the instruments prior to collection; 2) interviewing screeners after data collection; 3) conducting a pilot survey with a 10% sample of participants.BMJ Open 2017;7:e016663

Objectives: To examine individual, medication, system, and healthcare related predictors of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) presentation within 90 days of entering the aged care sector, and to create risk-profiles associated with these outcomes. Design and setting: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Registry of Senior Australians. Participants: Older people (aged 65 and older) with an aged care eligibility assessment in South Australia between January 1, 2013 and May 31, 2016 (N = 22,130). Measurements: Primary outcomes were unplanned hospitalization and ED presentation within 90 days of assessment. Individual, medication, system, and healthcare related predictors of the outcomes at the time of assessment, within 90 days or 1-year prior. Fine–Gray models were used to calculate subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Harrell's C-index assessed predictive ability. Results: Four thousand nine-hundred and six (22.2%) individuals were hospitalized and 5028 (22.7%) had an ED presentation within 90 days. Predictors of hospitalization included: being a man (hospitalization sHR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.26–1.42), ≥3 urgent after-hours attendances (hospitalization sHR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.06–1.39), increasing frailty index score (hospitalization sHR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.11–1.28), individuals using glucocorticoids (hospitalization sHR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02–1.20), sulfonamides (hospitalization sHR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.10–1.27), trimethoprim antibiotics (hospitalization sHR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.03–1.29), unplanned hospitalizations 30 days prior (hospitalization sHR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.04–1.23), and ED presentations 1 year prior (hospitalization sHR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.04–1.10). Similar predictors and hazard estimates were also observed for ED presentations. The hospitalization models out-of-sample predictive ability (C-index = 0.653, 95% CI 0.635–0.670) and ED presentations (C-index = 0.647, 95% CI 0.630–0.663) were moderate. Conclusions: One in five individuals with aged care eligibility assessments had unplanned hospitalizations and/or ED presentation within 90 days with several predictors identified at the time of aged care eligibility assessment. This is an actionable period for targeting at-risk individuals to reduce hospitalizations. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Objectives: International guidelines recommend annual mammography after early breast cancer, but there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support this schedule over any other. Given that not all women have the same risk of recurrence, it is possible that, by defining different risk profiles, we could tailor mammographic schedules that are more effective and efficient.Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed to describe the progression of early breast cancer after completion of primary treatment. Retrospective data for 1,100 postmenopausal women diagnosed with early breast cancer in South Australia from 2000 to 2008 were used to calibrate the model. Women were divided into four prognostic subgroups based on the Nottingham Prognostic Index of their primary tumor. For each subgroup, we compared the cost-effectiveness of three different mammographic schedules for two different age groups.Results: Annual mammographic follow-up was not cost-effective for most postmenopausal women. Two yearly mammography was cost-effective for all women with excellent prognosis tumors; and for women with good prognosis tumors if high compliance rates can be achieved. Annual mammography for 5 years and 2 yearly surveillance thereafter (a mixed schedule) may be cost-effective for 50- to 69-year-old women with moderate prognosis tumors, and for women aged 70–79 years with poor prognosis tumors. For younger women with poor prognosis tumors, annual mammography is potentially cost-effective.Conclusions: Our results suggest that mammographic follow-up could be tailored according to risk of recurrence. If validated with larger datasets, this could potentially set the stage for personalized mammographic follow-up after breast cancer.