以医院为基础的以老年病学为中心的创伤外科服务干预措施的范围审查。

Hiba Dhanani, Masami Tabata-Kelly, Molly Jarman, Zara Cooper
{"title":"以医院为基础的以老年病学为中心的创伤外科服务干预措施的范围审查。","authors":"Hiba Dhanani, Masami Tabata-Kelly, Molly Jarman, Zara Cooper","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Millions of older adults (≥65) present to emergency departments for injury annually. As the population increases, so will the number of older adults admitted for trauma. Although treatment guidelines for older adults who sustain trauma exist, the evidence for quality improvement is limited. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify hospital-based geriatric-centered interventions that improve care for older adults admitted to trauma services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to identify studies related to geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services (1993-2023). Five reviewers screened studies for full-text review based on these inclusion criteria: (1) older injured adults and/or their caregivers; (2) hospital-based clinical interventions directed to geriatric trauma patients (e.g., frailty assessments, geriatric co-management, triage criteria); and (3) measuring outcomes associated with geriatric trauma. We used the Donabedian quality improvement framework to categorize interventions as structures or processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2243 abstracts, 66 studies met the criteria for full-text review, and 47 were included in the analysis. Most (64%) were single-site retrospective cohort studies at Level 1 trauma centers. The most frequent interventions (not mutually exclusive) included geriatric-centered teams (26%), geriatric consultation (23%), interdisciplinary rounds (17%), and medication review (11%). The most frequently measured clinical outcomes were length of stay (47%), discharge location (26%), and in-hospital mortality (21%). Two studies (4%) measured outcomes beyond 3 months. Patient-reported outcomes were rarely included (4%), and caregiver-specific outcomes were not measured.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review demonstrates the variability in the types of geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services and their associated outcome measures. Furthermore, this review highlights evidence gaps in existing long-term, post-discharge outcomes and patient-/caregiver-reported outcomes. Given the increasing demand for high-quality geriatric trauma care, our findings emphasize the need for evidence-based national standards for geriatric trauma care and targeted study of outcomes germane to older adults and their caregivers.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of hospital-based geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services.\",\"authors\":\"Hiba Dhanani, Masami Tabata-Kelly, Molly Jarman, Zara Cooper\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Millions of older adults (≥65) present to emergency departments for injury annually. As the population increases, so will the number of older adults admitted for trauma. Although treatment guidelines for older adults who sustain trauma exist, the evidence for quality improvement is limited. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify hospital-based geriatric-centered interventions that improve care for older adults admitted to trauma services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to identify studies related to geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services (1993-2023). Five reviewers screened studies for full-text review based on these inclusion criteria: (1) older injured adults and/or their caregivers; (2) hospital-based clinical interventions directed to geriatric trauma patients (e.g., frailty assessments, geriatric co-management, triage criteria); and (3) measuring outcomes associated with geriatric trauma. We used the Donabedian quality improvement framework to categorize interventions as structures or processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2243 abstracts, 66 studies met the criteria for full-text review, and 47 were included in the analysis. Most (64%) were single-site retrospective cohort studies at Level 1 trauma centers. The most frequent interventions (not mutually exclusive) included geriatric-centered teams (26%), geriatric consultation (23%), interdisciplinary rounds (17%), and medication review (11%). The most frequently measured clinical outcomes were length of stay (47%), discharge location (26%), and in-hospital mortality (21%). Two studies (4%) measured outcomes beyond 3 months. Patient-reported outcomes were rarely included (4%), and caregiver-specific outcomes were not measured.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review demonstrates the variability in the types of geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services and their associated outcome measures. Furthermore, this review highlights evidence gaps in existing long-term, post-discharge outcomes and patient-/caregiver-reported outcomes. Given the increasing demand for high-quality geriatric trauma care, our findings emphasize the need for evidence-based national standards for geriatric trauma care and targeted study of outcomes germane to older adults and their caregivers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19292\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:每年有数百万老年人(≥65岁)因损伤到急诊科就诊。随着人口的增加,因创伤入院的老年人数量也会增加。尽管存在针对老年人创伤的治疗指南,但质量改善的证据有限。本综述的目的是确定以医院为基础的以老年病学为中心的干预措施,以改善接受创伤服务的老年人的护理。方法:我们检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL,以确定1993-2023年与创伤外科服务中以老年为中心的干预相关的研究。5位审稿人根据以下纳入标准筛选研究进行全文综述:(1)老年受伤成人和/或其照顾者;(2)针对老年创伤患者的基于医院的临床干预措施(例如,虚弱评估、老年联合管理、分诊标准);(3)测量与老年创伤相关的结局。我们使用Donabedian质量改进框架将干预措施分类为结构或过程。结果:2243篇摘要中,66篇符合全文综述标准,47篇纳入分析。大多数(64%)是一级创伤中心的单点回顾性队列研究。最常见的干预措施(并非相互排斥)包括以老年医学为中心的小组(26%)、老年医学咨询(23%)、跨学科查房(17%)和药物审查(11%)。最常测量的临床结果是住院时间(47%)、出院地点(26%)和住院死亡率(21%)。两项研究(4%)测量了超过3个月的结果。很少包括患者报告的结果(4%),并且没有测量护理人员特定的结果。结论:这一范围综述证明了创伤外科服务中以老年为中心的干预类型及其相关结果测量的可变性。此外,本综述强调了现有的长期、出院后结局和患者/护理人员报告的结局之间的证据差距。鉴于对高质量老年创伤护理的需求不断增加,我们的研究结果强调需要建立以证据为基础的老年创伤护理国家标准,并对与老年人及其护理者相关的结果进行针对性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review of hospital-based geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services.

Background: Millions of older adults (≥65) present to emergency departments for injury annually. As the population increases, so will the number of older adults admitted for trauma. Although treatment guidelines for older adults who sustain trauma exist, the evidence for quality improvement is limited. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify hospital-based geriatric-centered interventions that improve care for older adults admitted to trauma services.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to identify studies related to geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services (1993-2023). Five reviewers screened studies for full-text review based on these inclusion criteria: (1) older injured adults and/or their caregivers; (2) hospital-based clinical interventions directed to geriatric trauma patients (e.g., frailty assessments, geriatric co-management, triage criteria); and (3) measuring outcomes associated with geriatric trauma. We used the Donabedian quality improvement framework to categorize interventions as structures or processes.

Results: Of 2243 abstracts, 66 studies met the criteria for full-text review, and 47 were included in the analysis. Most (64%) were single-site retrospective cohort studies at Level 1 trauma centers. The most frequent interventions (not mutually exclusive) included geriatric-centered teams (26%), geriatric consultation (23%), interdisciplinary rounds (17%), and medication review (11%). The most frequently measured clinical outcomes were length of stay (47%), discharge location (26%), and in-hospital mortality (21%). Two studies (4%) measured outcomes beyond 3 months. Patient-reported outcomes were rarely included (4%), and caregiver-specific outcomes were not measured.

Conclusions: This scoping review demonstrates the variability in the types of geriatric-centered interventions on trauma surgery services and their associated outcome measures. Furthermore, this review highlights evidence gaps in existing long-term, post-discharge outcomes and patient-/caregiver-reported outcomes. Given the increasing demand for high-quality geriatric trauma care, our findings emphasize the need for evidence-based national standards for geriatric trauma care and targeted study of outcomes germane to older adults and their caregivers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信