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: 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.
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.
