Comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older people in acute hospitals: the HoW-CGA mixed-methods study

S. Conroy, M. Bardsley, Paul Smith, J. Neuburger, Eilís Keeble, S. Arora, Joshua Kraindler, C. Ariti, C. Sherlaw-Johnson, A. Street, H. Roberts, S. Kennedy, G. Martin, K. Phelps, E. Regen, D. Kocman, P. McCue, Elizabeth Fisher, S. Parker
{"title":"Comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older people in acute hospitals: the HoW-CGA mixed-methods study","authors":"S. Conroy, M. Bardsley, Paul Smith, J. Neuburger, Eilís Keeble, S. Arora, Joshua Kraindler, C. Ariti, C. Sherlaw-Johnson, A. Street, H. Roberts, S. Kennedy, G. Martin, K. Phelps, E. Regen, D. Kocman, P. McCue, Elizabeth Fisher, S. Parker","doi":"10.3310/HSDR07150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence on delivering hospital-wide Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA).(1) To define CGA, its processes, outcomes and costs in the published literature, (2) to identify the processes, outcomes and costs of CGA in existing hospital settings in the UK, (3) to identify the characteristics of the recipients and beneficiaries of CGA in existing hospital settings in the UK and (4) to develop tools that will assist in the implementation of hospital-wide CGA.Mixed-methods study combining a mapping review, national survey, large data analysis and qualitative methods.People aged ≥ 65 years in acute hospital settings.Literature review – Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Survey – acute hospital trusts. Large data analyses – (1) people aged ≥ 75 years in 2008 living in Leicester, Nottingham or Southampton (development cohort,n = 22,139); (2) older people admitted for short stay (Nottingham/Leicester,n = 825) to a geriatric ward (Southampton,n = 246) or based in the community (Newcastle,n = 754); (3) people aged ≥ 75 years admitted to acute hospitals in England in 2014–15 (validation study,n = 1,013,590). Toolkit development – multidisciplinary national stakeholder group (co-production); field-testing with cancer/surgical teams in Newcastle/Leicester.Literature search – common outcomes included clinical, operational and destinational, but not patient-reported, outcome measures. Survey – highly variable provision of multidisciplinary assessment and care across hospitals. Quantitative analyses – in the development cohort, older people with frailty diagnoses formed a distinct group and had higher non-elective hospital use than older people without a frailty diagnosis. Patients with the highest 20% of hospital frailty risk scores had increased odds of 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7], long length of stay (OR 6.0) and 30-day re-admission (OR 1.5). The score had moderate agreement with the Fried and Rockwood scales. Pilot toolkit evaluation – participants across sites were still at the beginning of their work to identify patients and plan change. In particular, competing definitions of the role of geriatricians were evident.The survey was limited by an incomplete response rate but it still provides the largest description of acute hospital care for older people to date. The risk stratification tool is not contemporaneous, although it remains a powerful predictor of patient harms. The toolkit evaluation is still rather nascent and could have meaningfully continued for another year or more.CGA remains the gold standard approach to improving a range of outcomes for older people in acute hospitals. Older people at risk can be identified using routine hospital data. Toolkits aimed at enhancing the delivery of CGA by non-specialists can be useful but require prolonged geriatrician support and implementation phases. Future work could involve comparing the hospital-based frailty index with the electronic Frailty Index and further testing of the clinical toolkits in specialist services.The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR07150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence on delivering hospital-wide Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA).(1) To define CGA, its processes, outcomes and costs in the published literature, (2) to identify the processes, outcomes and costs of CGA in existing hospital settings in the UK, (3) to identify the characteristics of the recipients and beneficiaries of CGA in existing hospital settings in the UK and (4) to develop tools that will assist in the implementation of hospital-wide CGA.Mixed-methods study combining a mapping review, national survey, large data analysis and qualitative methods.People aged ≥ 65 years in acute hospital settings.Literature review – Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Survey – acute hospital trusts. Large data analyses – (1) people aged ≥ 75 years in 2008 living in Leicester, Nottingham or Southampton (development cohort,n = 22,139); (2) older people admitted for short stay (Nottingham/Leicester,n = 825) to a geriatric ward (Southampton,n = 246) or based in the community (Newcastle,n = 754); (3) people aged ≥ 75 years admitted to acute hospitals in England in 2014–15 (validation study,n = 1,013,590). Toolkit development – multidisciplinary national stakeholder group (co-production); field-testing with cancer/surgical teams in Newcastle/Leicester.Literature search – common outcomes included clinical, operational and destinational, but not patient-reported, outcome measures. Survey – highly variable provision of multidisciplinary assessment and care across hospitals. Quantitative analyses – in the development cohort, older people with frailty diagnoses formed a distinct group and had higher non-elective hospital use than older people without a frailty diagnosis. Patients with the highest 20% of hospital frailty risk scores had increased odds of 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7], long length of stay (OR 6.0) and 30-day re-admission (OR 1.5). The score had moderate agreement with the Fried and Rockwood scales. Pilot toolkit evaluation – participants across sites were still at the beginning of their work to identify patients and plan change. In particular, competing definitions of the role of geriatricians were evident.The survey was limited by an incomplete response rate but it still provides the largest description of acute hospital care for older people to date. The risk stratification tool is not contemporaneous, although it remains a powerful predictor of patient harms. The toolkit evaluation is still rather nascent and could have meaningfully continued for another year or more.CGA remains the gold standard approach to improving a range of outcomes for older people in acute hospitals. Older people at risk can be identified using routine hospital data. Toolkits aimed at enhancing the delivery of CGA by non-specialists can be useful but require prolonged geriatrician support and implementation phases. Future work could involve comparing the hospital-based frailty index with the electronic Frailty Index and further testing of the clinical toolkits in specialist services.The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
急性医院体弱老年人的综合老年病学评估:HoW-CGA混合方法研究
本研究的目的是为提供全院范围的综合老年评估(CGA)提供高质量的证据。(1)在已发表的文献中定义CGA、其过程、结果和成本;(2)确定英国现有医院环境中CGA的过程、结果和成本。(3)确定英国现有医院环境中社区保健服务的接受者和受益者的特点;(4)开发有助于实施全院范围的社区保健服务的工具。混合方法的研究结合了制图审查,全国调查,大数据分析和定性方法。≥65岁急性住院患者。文献综述- Cochrane系统综述数据库,效果综述摘要数据库,MEDLINE和EMBASE。调查-急性医院信托。大数据分析——(1)2008年居住在莱斯特、诺丁汉或南安普敦的年龄≥75岁的人(发展队列,n = 22139);(2)在老年病房(南安普敦,n = 246)或社区(纽卡斯尔,n = 754)短期住院的老年人(诺丁汉/莱斯特,n = 825);(3) 2014 - 2015年英国急症医院收治≥75岁的患者(验证研究,n = 1,013,590)。工具包开发-多学科国家利益相关者小组(联合制作);在纽卡斯尔/莱斯特的癌症/外科团队中进行实地测试。文献检索-常见结果包括临床、手术和目的地,但不包括患者报告的结果测量。调查——各医院提供的多学科评估和护理情况变化很大。定量分析——在发展队列中,被诊断为虚弱的老年人形成了一个独特的群体,比没有被诊断为虚弱的老年人有更高的非选择性住院率。住院虚弱风险评分最高20%的患者30天死亡率[比值比(OR) 1.7]、住院时间长(OR 6.0)和30天再入院(OR 1.5)的几率均增加。该分数与弗里德量表和洛克伍德量表有适度的一致性。试点工具包评估-跨站点的参与者仍处于确定患者和计划变更的开始阶段。特别是,对老年病学家角色的不同定义是显而易见的。这项调查受到不完全反应率的限制,但它仍然提供了迄今为止对老年人急性医院护理的最大描述。风险分层工具不是同时代的,尽管它仍然是一个强有力的预测病人伤害的工具。工具包评估仍处于相当初期的阶段,可能会有意义地再持续一年或更长时间。CGA仍然是改善急性医院老年人一系列结果的金标准方法。可使用常规医院数据识别有风险的老年人。旨在加强非专业人员提供老年保健服务的工具包可能是有用的,但需要长期的老年专家支持和实施阶段。未来的工作可能包括比较基于医院的虚弱指数与电子虚弱指数,并进一步测试专科服务的临床工具包。国家卫生研究所卫生服务和提供研究方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信