BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is now the accepted gold standard for caring for frail older people in hospital. However, there is uncertainty about identifying and targeting suitable recipients and which patients benefit the most.
OBJECTIVES: our objectives were to describe the key elements, principal measures of outcome and the characteristics of the main beneficiaries of inpatient CGA.
METHODS: we used the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review method. We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing CGA services for hospital inpatients in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), MEDLINE and EMBASE and a range of other sources.
RESULTS: we screened 1,010 titles and evaluated 419 abstracts for eligibility, 143 full articles for relevance and included 24 in a final quality and relevance check. Thirteen reviews, reported in 15 papers, were selected for review. The most widely used definition of CGA was: 'a multidimensional, multidisciplinary process which identifies medical, social and functional needs, and the development of an integrated/co-ordinated care plan to meet those needs'. Key clinical outcomes included mortality, activities of daily living and dependency. The main beneficiaries were people ≥55 years in receipt of acute care. Frailty in CGA recipients and patient related outcomes were not usually reported.
CONCLUSIONS: we confirm a widely used definition of CGA. Key outcomes are death, disability and institutionalisation. The main beneficiaries in hospital are older people with acute illness. The presence of frailty has not been widely examined as a determinant of CGA outcome.
BACKGROUND: Many elders struggle with the decision to remain at home or to move to an alternative location of care. A person's location of care can influence health and wellbeing. Healthcare organizations and policy makers are increasingly challenged to better support elders' dwelling and health care needs. A summary of the evidence that examines home care compared to other care locations can inform decision making. We surveyed and summarized the evidence evaluating the impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. Data sources included MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Eligible reviews included adults 65+ years, elder home care, alternative care locations, and elder health outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened citations. We extracted data and appraised review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Results were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: The search yielded 2575 citations, of which 19 systematic reviews were eligible. Three hundred and forty studies with 271,660 participants were synthesized across the systematic reviews. The categories of comparisons included: home with support versus independent living at home (n = 11 reviews), home care versus institutional care (n = 3 reviews), and rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services (n = 7 reviews). Two reviews had data relevant to two categories. Most reviews favoured home with support to independent living at home. Findings comparing home care to institutional care were mixed. Most reviews found no differences in health outcomes between rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services. Systematic review quality was moderate, with a median AMSTAR score of 6 (range 4 - 10 out of 11).
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the impact of home care compared to alternative care locations on elder health outcomes is heterogeneous. Our findings support positive health impacts of home support interventions for community dwelling elders compared to independent living at home. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact of alternative care locations on elders' health. Additional research targeting housing and care options for the elderly is needed.
BACKGROUND: Falls are common events in older people, which cause considerable morbidity and mortality. Non-pharmacological interventions are an important approach to prevent falls. There are a large number of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, whose evidence needs to be synthesized in order to facilitate evidence-based clinical decision making. OBJECTIVES: To systematically examine reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older adults in the community, care facilities and hospitals. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Pubmed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDRO and TRIP from January 2009 to March 2015, for systematic reviews that included at least one comparative study, evaluating any non-pharmacological intervention, to prevent falls amongst older adults. The quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR and ProFaNE taxonomy was used to organize the interventions. RESULTS: Fifty-nine systematic reviews were identified which consisted of single, multiple and multifactorial non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people. The most frequent ProFaNE defined interventions were exercises either alone or combined with other interventions, followed by environment/assistive technology interventions comprising environmental modifications, assistive and protective aids, staff education and vision assessment/correction. Knowledge was the third principle class of interventions as patient education. Exercise and multifactorial interventions were the most effective treatments to reduce falls in older adults, although not all types of exercise were equally effective in all subjects and in all settings. Effective exercise programs combined balance and strength training. Reviews with a higher AMSTAR score were more likely to contain more primary studies, to be updated and to perform meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this overview of reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people in different settings, is to support clinicians and other healthcare workers with clinical decision-making by providing a comprehensive perspective of findings.
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological intervention (e.g. multidisciplinary interventions, music therapy, bright light therapy, educational interventions etc.) are alternative interventions that can be used in older subjects. There are plenty reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention and treatment of delirium in older patients and clinicians need a synthesized, methodologically sound document for their decision making.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of comparative studies concerning non-pharmacological intervention to treat or prevent delirium in older patients. The PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINHAL, and PsychINFO (April 28th, 2014) were searched for relevant articles. AMSTAR was used to assess the quality of the SRs. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of primary studies. The elements of the multicomponent interventions were identified and compared among different studies to explore the possibility of performing a meta-analysis. Risk ratios were estimated using a random-effects model. Twenty-four SRs with 31 primary studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR criteria twelve reviews resulted of moderate quality and three resulted of high quality. Overall, multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions significantly reduced the incidence of delirium in surgical wards [2 randomized trials (RCTs): relative risk (RR) 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.86, I2=0%; (GRADE evidence: moderate)] and in medical wards [2 CCTs: RR 0.65, 95%CI 0.49 to 0.86, I2=0%; (GRADE evidence: moderate)]. There is no evidence supporting the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in low risk populations (i.e. low rate of delirium in the control group)[1 RCT.: RR 1.75, 95%CI 0.50 to 6.10 (GRADE evidence: very low)]. For patients who have developed delirium, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions to treat delirium. Among single component interventions only staff education, reorientation protocol (GRADE evidence: very low)] and Geriatric Risk Assessment MedGuide software [hazard ratio 0.42, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.52, (GRADE evidence: moderate)] resulted effective in preventing delirium.
CONCLUSIONS: In older patients multi-component non-pharmacological interventions as well as some single-components intervention were effective in preventing delirium but not to treat delirium.
Background: The economic impact and ease of measurement of all-cause hospital readmission rates (HRR) have led to the current debate as to whether they are reducible, and whether they should be used as a publicly reported quality indicators of medical care. Objective: To assess the efficacy of broad clinical interventions in preventing HRR of patients with chronic diseases. Method: A meta-review of published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of clinical interventions that have included HRR among the patients' outcomes of interest. Main findings: Meta-analyses of RCTs have consistently found that, in the community, disease management programs significantly reduced HRR in patients with heart failure, coronary heart disease and bronchial asthma, but not in patients with stroke and in unselected patients with chronic disorders. Inhospital interventions, such as discharge planning, pharmacological consultations and multidisciplinary care, and community interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases had an inconsistent effect on HRR. Main study limitation: Despite their economic impact and ease of measurement, HRR are not the most important outcome of patient care, and efforts aimed at their reduction may compromise patients' health by reducing also justified re-admissions. Conclusions: The efficacy of inhospital interventions in reducing HRR is in need of further study. In patients with heart diseases and bronchial asthma, HRR may be considered as a publicly reported quality indicator of community care, provided that future research confirms that efforts to reduce HRR do not adversely affect other patients' outcomes, such as mortality, functional capacity and quality of life. Future research should also focus on the reasons for the higher efficacy of community interventions in patients with heart diseases and bronchial asthma than in those with other chronic diseases.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically investigate current scientific evidence about the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team rehabilitation for different health problems.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Medline, DARE, Embase, and Cinahl databases, and research from existing systematic reviews was critically appraised and summarized.
STUDY SELECTION: Using the search terms "rehabilitation", "multidisciplinary teams" or "team care", references were identified for existing studies published after 2000 that examined multidisciplinary rehabilitation team care for adults, without restrictions in terms of study population or outcomes. The most recent reviews examining a study population were selected.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted information about study populations, sample sizes, study designs, rehabilitation settings, the team, interventions, and findings.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 14 reviews were included to summarize the findings of 12 different study populations. Evidence was found to support improved functioning following multidisciplinary rehabilitation team care for 10 of 12 different study population: elderly people, elderly people with hip fracture, homeless people with mental illness, adults with multiple sclerosis, stroke, acquired brain injury, chronic arthropathy, chronic pain, low back pain, and fibromyalgia. Whereas evidence was not found for adults with amyetrophic lateral schlerosis, and neck and shoulder pain.
CONCLUSION: Although these studies included heterogeneous patient groups the overall conclusion was that multidisciplinary rehabilitation team care effectively improves rehabilitation intervention. However, further research in this area is needed.
BACKGROUND: Despite the significant burden of delirium among hospitalized adults, critical appraisal of systematic data on delirium diagnosis, pathophysiology, treatment, prevention, and outcomes is lacking.
PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for delirium care to practitioners, and identify gaps in delirium research.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) information systems from January 1966 to April 2011.
STUDY SELECTION: All published systematic evidence reviews (SERs) on delirium were evaluated.
DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers independently extracted the data regarding delirium risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and outcomes, and critically appraised each SER as good, fair, or poor using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two SERs graded as good or fair provided the data. Age, cognitive impairment, depression, anticholinergic drugs, and lorazepam use were associated with an increased risk for developing delirium. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is reliable for delirium diagnosis outside of the intensive care unit. Multicomponent nonpharmacological interventions are effective in reducing delirium incidence in elderly medical patients. Low-dose haloperidol has similar efficacy as atypical antipsychotics for treating delirium. Delirium is associated with poor outcomes independent of age, severity of illness, or dementia.
CONCLUSION: Delirium is an acute, preventable medical condition with short- and long-term negative effects on a patient's cognitive and functional states.
BACKGROUND: Specialized community-based care (SCBC) refers to services that manage chronic illness through formalized links between primary and specialized care.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this evidence-based analysis (EBA) were as follows: to summarize the literature on SCBC, also known as intermediate careto synthesize the evidence from previous Medical Advisory Secretariat (now Health Quality Ontario) EBAs on SCBC for heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic woundsto examine the role of SCBC in family practice
RESULTS: PART 1: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF INTERMEDIATE CARE Seven systematic reviews on intermediate care since 2008 were identified. The literature base is complex and difficult to define. There is evidence to suggest that intermediate care is effective in improving outcomes; however, the effective interventions are still uncertain. PART 2: SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE IN INTERMEDIATE CARE MORTALITY: • Heart failure: Significant reduction in patients receiving SCBC. • COPD.: Nonsignificant reduction in patients receiving SCBC. HOSPITALIZATION: • Heart failureNonsignificant reduction in patients receiving SCBC.
• COPD.: Significant reduction in patients receiving SCBC. EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS: • Heart failure:Nonsignificant reduction in patients receiving SCBC.
• COPD.: Significant reduction in patients receiving SCBC.
DISEASE-SPECIFIC PATIENT OUTCOMES: • COPD.: Nonsignificant improvement in lung function in patients receiving SCBC.
• Diabetes: Significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure in patients receiving SCBC.
• Chronic wounds: Significant increase in the proportion of healed wounds in patients receiving SCBC..
QUALITY OF LIFE: • Heart failure: Trend toward improvement in patients receiving SCBC
• COPD.: Significant improvement in patients receiving SCBC, PART 3: INTERMEDIATE CARE IN FAMILY PRACTICE: EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS: Five randomized controlled trials were identified comparing SCBC to usual care in family practice. Inclusion criteria were 1) the presence of multiple chronic conditions, and 2) interventions that included 2 or more health care professions. The GRADE quality of the evidence was assessed as low for all outcomes due to the inconsistency and indirectness of the results.
LIMITATIONS: This review did not look at disease-specific studies on intermediate care in family practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Specialized community-based care effectively improves outcomes in patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes. The effectiveness of SCBC in family practice is unclear.
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is now the accepted gold standard for caring for frail older people in hospital. However, there is uncertainty about identifying and targeting suitable recipients and which patients benefit the most.
OBJECTIVES:
our objectives were to describe the key elements, principal measures of outcome and the characteristics of the main beneficiaries of inpatient CGA.
METHODS:
we used the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review method. We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing CGA services for hospital inpatients in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), MEDLINE and EMBASE and a range of other sources.
RESULTS:
we screened 1,010 titles and evaluated 419 abstracts for eligibility, 143 full articles for relevance and included 24 in a final quality and relevance check. Thirteen reviews, reported in 15 papers, were selected for review. The most widely used definition of CGA was: 'a multidimensional, multidisciplinary process which identifies medical, social and functional needs, and the development of an integrated/co-ordinated care plan to meet those needs'. Key clinical outcomes included mortality, activities of daily living and dependency. The main beneficiaries were people ≥55 years in receipt of acute care. Frailty in CGA recipients and patient related outcomes were not usually reported.
CONCLUSIONS:
we confirm a widely used definition of CGA. Key outcomes are death, disability and institutionalisation. The main beneficiaries in hospital are older people with acute illness. The presence of frailty has not been widely examined as a determinant of CGA outcome.
