BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multi-dimensional, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic process conducted to determine the medical, mental, and functional problems of older people with frailty so that a co-ordinated and integrated plan for treatment and follow-up can be developed. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the effectiveness and resource use of CGA for older adults admitted to hospital, and to use these data to estimate its cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 5 October 2016; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared inpatient CGA (delivered on geriatric wards or by mobile teams) versus usual care on a general medical ward or on a ward for older people, usually admitted to hospital for acute care or for inpatient rehabilitation after an acute admission.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the most important outcomes. For this update, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from trialists, and we conducted a survey of trialists to obtain details of delivery of CGA. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and combined data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated cost-effectiveness by comparing inpatient CGA versus hospital admission without CGA in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, cost per life year (LY) gained, and cost per life year living at home (LYLAH) gained.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials recruiting 13,766 participants across nine, mostly high-income countries. CGA increases the likelihood that patients will be alive and in their own homes at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.10; 16 trials, 6799 participants; high-certainty evidence), results in little or no difference in mortality at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 21 trials, 10,023 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreases the likelihood that patients will be admitted to a nursing home at 3 to 12 months follow-up (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; 14 trials, 6285 participants; high-certainty evidence) and results in little or no difference in dependence (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04; 14 trials, 6551 participants; high-certainty evidence). CGA may make little or no difference to cognitive function (SMD ranged from -0.22 to 0.35 (5 trials, 3534 participants; low-certainty evidence)). Mean length of stay ranged from 1.63 days to 40.7 days in the intervention group, and ranged from 1.8 days to 42.8 days in the comparison group. Healthcare costs per participant in the CGA group were on average GBP 234 (95% CI GBP -144 to GBP 605) higher than in the usual care group (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence). CGA may lead to a slight increase in QALYs of 0.012 (95% CI -0.024 to 0.048) at GBP 19,802 per QALY gained (3 trials; low-certainty evidence), a slight increase in LYs of 0.037 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.073), at GBP 6305 per LY gained (4 trials; low-certainty evidence), and a slight increase in LYLAH of 0.019 (95% CI -0.019 to 0.155) at GBP 12,568 per LYLAH gained (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The probability that CGA would be cost-effective at a GBP 20,000 ceiling ratio for QALY, LY, and LYLAH was 0.50, 0.89, and 0.47, respectively (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Older patients are more likely to be alive and in their own homes at follow-up if they received CGA on admission to hospital. We are uncertain whether data show a difference in effect between wards and teams, as this analysis was underpowered. CGA may lead to a small increase in costs, and evidence for cost-effectiveness is of low-certainty due to imprecision and inconsistency among studies. Further research that reports cost estimates that are setting-specific across different sectors of care are required.
With worldwide population aging, increasing numbers of people need hospital care. Evidence suggests comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is superior to usual care. To summarize the evidence for the effects of CGA in frail and moderately frail patients compared with usual care in acute care settings. CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched in October 2011, January 2013, and February 2015. Randomized controlled trials. CGA. Usual care. Change in housing, personal activities of daily living (PADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), readmission, cognitive function, depression, quality-of-life care-giver burden, and mortality. The grading of recommendations assessment development and evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence and PRISMA-guidelines for meta-analyses and reviews. Continuous data were presented as standardized mean differences and dichotomous data were presented as risk differences. Twenty-nine articles based on 17 unique studies (6005 patients in total). CGA was categorized as CGA-ward or CGA-consult. In the frail group, CGA-ward was superior to usual care for change in housing, PADL, and depression. CGA-consult was superior to usual care for PADL and IADL in the moderately frail group. There was a stronger effect for frail older adults and CGA-ward compared with usual care. This highlights the importance of detecting frailty. However, the degree of evidence was limited.
BACKGROUND: A major challenge facing our health care systems internationally is managing the needs of increasing numbers of older people in hospital with chronic and complex conditions. A multidisciplinary approach is considered central to tailoring and targeting approaches to gerontological care, although this is often not realised in reality. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is seen as gold standard, though they are not readily available in many acute settings, compounded by the requirement for time, coordination of multidisciplinary specialties, and reimbursement issues. This systematic review aimed to identify multidisciplinary team interventions to optimise health outcomes for older people in acute care settings.
METHOD: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials reporting acute care multidisciplinary team based interventions, to improve care outcomes for hospitalised older people. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane and PsycINFO) were searched from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2014 in the English language. Data was extracted by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer to resolve any conflicts.
RESULTS: Seven articles reporting RCTs met the systematic review inclusion criteria. The heterogeneity of study populations, multidisciplinary team interventions and outcome measures necessitated the use of narrative analysis. Three common elements of these studies included: (i) tailored treatment by clinicians with geriatric expertise (ii) a focus on transitional care interventions that enhance discharge planning; and (iii) communication an essential ingredient to improving care.
CONCLUSION: The tailoring of treatment, underpinned with clear communication strategies can reduce emergency department re-admission rates, mortality and functional decline of older people. Refining health professionals roles and responsibilities within transition models is an essential component that can improve health outcomes for older people in acute care settings.
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients admitted to dedicated wards has proven to be beneficial, but the impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment delivered by mobile inpatient geriatric consultation teams remains unclear. This review and meta-analysis aims to determine the impact of inpatient geriatric consultation teams on clinical outcomes of interest in older adults.
METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and Invert for English, French and Dutch articles was performed from inception to June 2012. Three independent reviewers selected prospective cohort studies assessing functional status, readmission rate, mortality or length of stay in adults aged 60 years or older. Twelve studies evaluating 4,546 participants in six countries were identified. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.
RESULTS: The individual studies show that an inpatient geriatric consultation team intervention has favorable effects on functional status, readmission and mortality rate. None of the studies found an effect on the length of the hospital stay. The meta-analysis found a beneficial effect of the intervention with regard to mortality rate at 6 months (relative risk 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.85) and 8 months (relative risk 0.51; confidence interval 0.31 to 0.85) after hospital discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient geriatric consultation team interventions have a significant impact on mortality rate at 6 and 8 months postdischarge, but have no significant impact on functional status, readmission or length of stay. The reason for the lack of effect on these latter outcomes may be due to insufficient statistical power or the insensitivity of the measuring method for, for example, functional status. The questions of to whom IGCT intervention should be targeted and what can be achieved remain unanswered and require further research.TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42011001420 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
Objectives To describe the Acute Care for Elders ( ACE) model components implemented as part of acute geriatric unit care and explore the association between each ACE component and outcomes of iatrogenic complications, functional decline, length of hospital stay, nursing home discharges, costs, and discharges home. Design Systematic descriptive review of 32 articles, including 14 trials reporting on the implementation of ACE components or the effectiveness of their implementation in improving outcomes. Mean effect sizes ( ESs) were calculated using trial outcome data. Information describing implementation of the ACE components in the trials was analyzed using content analysis. Setting Acute care geriatric units. Participants Acutely ill or injured adults (N = 6,839) with an average age of 81. Interventions Acute geriatric unit care was characterized by the implementation of one or more ACE components: medical review, early rehabilitation, early discharge planning, prepared environment, patient-centered care. Measurements Falls, pressure ulcers, delirium, functional decline, length of hospital stay, discharge destination (home or nursing home), and costs. Results Medical review, early rehabilitation, and patient-centered care, characterized by the implementation of standardized and individualized function-focused interventions, had larger standardized mean ESs (all ES = 0.20) averaged across all outcomes, than did early discharge planning ( ES = 0.17) or prepared environment ( ES = 0.11). Conclusion Specific ACE component interventions of medical review, early rehabilitation, and patient-centered care appear to be optimal for overall positive outcomes. These findings can help service providers design and evaluate the most-effective ACE model within the contexts of their respective institutions to improve outcomes for acutely ill or injured older adults.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to provide a more precise definition of an integrated oncogeriatric approach (IOGA) through concept analysis.
DATA SOURCES: The literature was reviewed from January 2005 to April 2011 integrating three broad terms: geriatric oncology, multidisciplinarity and integrated care delivery models.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Citation selection was based on: (1) elderly cancer patients as the study population; (2) disease management and (3) case studies, intervention studies, assessments, evaluations and studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were refined in the course of the literature search.
INTERVENTIONS: Initiatives in geriatric oncology that relate to oncology services, social support services and primary care services for elderly cancer patients.
PARTICIPANTS: Elderly cancer patients aged 70 years old or more.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Rodgers' concept analysis method was used for this study. The analysis was carried out according to thematic analysis based on the elements of the Chronic Care Model.
RESULTS: The search identified 618 citations. After in-depth appraisal of 327 potential citations, 62 articles that met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Three IOGA main attributes were identified, which constitute IOGA's core aspects: geriatric assessment (GA), comorbidity burden and treatment outcomes. The IOGA concept comprises two broad antecedents: coordinated healthcare delivery and primary supportive care services. Regarding the consequents of an integrated approach in geriatric oncology, the studies reviewed remain inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the pioneering character of the multidimensional IOGA concept, for which the relationship between clinical and organisational attributes, on the one hand, and contextual antecedents, on the other, is not well understood. We have yet to ascertain IOGA's consequents. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There is clearly a need for a whole-system approach to change that will provide direction for multilevel (clinical, organisational, strategic) interventions to support interdisciplinary practice, education and research.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of acute geriatric unit care, based on all or part of the Acute Care for Elders (ACE) model and introduced in the acute phase of illness or injury, with that of usual care.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled and quasi-experimental trials with parallel comparison groups retrieved from multiple sources.
SETTING: Acute care geriatric and nongeriatric hospital units.
PARTICIPANTS: Acutely ill or injured adults (N = 6,839) with an average age of 81.
INTERVENTIONS: Acute geriatric unit care characterized by one or more ACE components: patient-centered care, frequent medical review, early rehabilitation, early discharge planning, prepared environment.
MEASUREMENTS: Falls, pressure ulcers, delirium, functional decline at discharge from baseline 2-week prehospital and hospital admission statuses, length of hospital stay, discharge destination (home or nursing home), mortality, costs, and hospital readmissions.
RESULTS: Acute geriatric unit care was associated with fewer falls (risk ratio (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.29-0.88), less delirium (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61-0.88), less functional decline at discharge from baseline 2-week prehospital admission status (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.78-0.97), shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.61, 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.05), fewer discharges to a nursing home (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68-0.99), lower costs (WMD = -$245.80, 95% CI = -$446.23 to -$45.38), and more discharges to home (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.10). A nonsignificant trend toward fewer pressure ulcers was observed. No differences were found in functional decline between baseline hospital admission status and discharge, mortality, or hospital readmissions.
CONCLUSION: Acute geriatric unit care, based on all or part of the ACE model and introduced during the acute phase of older adults' illness or injury, improves patient- and system-level outcomes.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Unplanned hospital readmissions of elderly people represent an increasing burden on health care systems. This burden could theoretically be reduced by adequate preventive interventions, although there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of different types of interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to identify interventions that effectively reduce the risk of hospital readmissions in patients of 75 years and older, and to assess the role of home follow-up.
METHODS: We searched studies in MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and seven other electronic databases up to October 2007, and we updated the MEDLINE search in October 2009. Clinical trials (randomized or controlled) evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at reducing readmissions in elderly patients were selected. Quality was assessed using the SIGN tool and the information extracted is presented in text and tables.
RESULTS: Thirty-two clinical trials were included and they were divided into two groups: in-hospital interventions (17 studies) and interventions with home follow-up (15 studies). A positive effect of the intervention evaluated on the readmission outcome was found in three studies from the first group and in seven from the second group.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the interventions evaluated did not have any effect on the readmission of elderly patients. However, those interventions that included home care components seem to be more likely to reduce readmissions in the elderly.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the EPOC Register, Cochrane's Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AARP Ageline, and handsearched high yield journals.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) compared with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data. Two additional reviewers moderated.
RESULTS: Twenty two trials evaluating 10,315 participants in six countries were identified. For the primary outcome "living at home," patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessment were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up (odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P = 0.003; number needed to treat 33) at a median follow-up of 12 months versus 1.25 (1.11 to 1.42; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 17) at a median follow-up of six months) compared with patients who received general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be living in residential care (0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.001). Subgroup interaction suggested differences between the subgroups "wards" and "teams" in favour of wards. Patients were also less likely to die or experience deterioration (0.76, 0.64 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and were more likely to experience improved cognition (standardised mean difference 0.08, 0.01 to 0.15; P = 0.02) in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive geriatric assessment increases patients' likelihood of being alive and in their own homes after an emergency admission to hospital. This seems to be especially true for trials of wards designated for comprehensive geriatric assessment and is associated with a potential cost reduction compared with general medical care.
BACKGROUND: many frail older people who attend acute hospital settings and who are discharged home within short periods (up to 72 h) have poor outcomes. This review assessed the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for such people. METHODS: standard bibliographic databases were searched for high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CGA in this setting. When appropriate, intervention effects were presented as rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: five trials of sufficient quality were included. There was no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in this population in terms of mortality [RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.55-1.52)] or readmissions [RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.83-1.08)] or for subsequent institutionalisation, functional ability, quality-of-life or cognition. CONCLUSIONS: there is no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in frail older people being discharged from emergency departments or acute medical units. However, few such trials have been carried out and their overall quality was poor. Further well designed trials are justified.
Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multi-dimensional, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic process conducted to determine the medical, mental, and functional problems of older people with frailty so that a co-ordinated and integrated plan for treatment and follow-up can be developed. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES:
We sought to critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the effectiveness and resource use of CGA for older adults admitted to hospital, and to use these data to estimate its cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 5 October 2016; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised trials that compared inpatient CGA (delivered on geriatric wards or by mobile teams) versus usual care on a general medical ward or on a ward for older people, usually admitted to hospital for acute care or for inpatient rehabilitation after an acute admission.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the most important outcomes. For this update, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from trialists, and we conducted a survey of trialists to obtain details of delivery of CGA. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and combined data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated cost-effectiveness by comparing inpatient CGA versus hospital admission without CGA in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, cost per life year (LY) gained, and cost per life year living at home (LYLAH) gained.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 29 trials recruiting 13,766 participants across nine, mostly high-income countries. CGA increases the likelihood that patients will be alive and in their own homes at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.10; 16 trials, 6799 participants; high-certainty evidence), results in little or no difference in mortality at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 21 trials, 10,023 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreases the likelihood that patients will be admitted to a nursing home at 3 to 12 months follow-up (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; 14 trials, 6285 participants; high-certainty evidence) and results in little or no difference in dependence (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04; 14 trials, 6551 participants; high-certainty evidence). CGA may make little or no difference to cognitive function (SMD ranged from -0.22 to 0.35 (5 trials, 3534 participants; low-certainty evidence)). Mean length of stay ranged from 1.63 days to 40.7 days in the intervention group, and ranged from 1.8 days to 42.8 days in the comparison group. Healthcare costs per participant in the CGA group were on average GBP 234 (95% CI GBP -144 to GBP 605) higher than in the usual care group (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence). CGA may lead to a slight increase in QALYs of 0.012 (95% CI -0.024 to 0.048) at GBP 19,802 per QALY gained (3 trials; low-certainty evidence), a slight increase in LYs of 0.037 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.073), at GBP 6305 per LY gained (4 trials; low-certainty evidence), and a slight increase in LYLAH of 0.019 (95% CI -0.019 to 0.155) at GBP 12,568 per LYLAH gained (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The probability that CGA would be cost-effective at a GBP 20,000 ceiling ratio for QALY, LY, and LYLAH was 0.50, 0.89, and 0.47, respectively (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Older patients are more likely to be alive and in their own homes at follow-up if they received CGA on admission to hospital. We are uncertain whether data show a difference in effect between wards and teams, as this analysis was underpowered. CGA may lead to a small increase in costs, and evidence for cost-effectiveness is of low-certainty due to imprecision and inconsistency among studies. Further research that reports cost estimates that are setting-specific across different sectors of care are required.
