Search

Background: Identification of community-dwelling older adults at risk of unplanned hospitalizations is of importance to facilitate preventive interventions. Our objective was to review and appraise the methodological quality and predictive performance of prediction models for predicting unplanned hospitalizations in community-dwelling older adults Methods and findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from August 2013 to January 2021. Additionally, we checked references of the identified articles for the inclusion of relevant publications and added studies from two previous reviews that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. We included prospective and retrospective studies with any follow-up period that recruited adults aged 65 and over and developed a prediction model predicting unplanned hospitalizations. We included models with at least one (internal or external) validation cohort. The models had to be intended to be used in a primary care setting. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction following recommendations of the CHARMS checklist, while quality assessment was performed using the PROBAST tool. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Prediction horizon ranged from 4.5 months to 4 years. Most frequently included variables were specific medical diagnoses (n = 11), previous hospital admission (n = 11), age (n = 11), and sex or gender (n = 8). Predictive performance in terms of area under the curve ranged from 0.61 to 0.78. Models developed to predict potentially preventable hospitalizations tended to have better predictive performance than models predicting hospitalizations in general. Overall, risk of bias was high, predominantly in the analysis domain. Conclusions: Models developed to predict preventable hospitalizations tended to have better predictive performance than models to predict all-cause hospitalizations. There is however substantial room for improvement on the reporting and analysis of studies. We recommend better adherence to the TRIPOD guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informing residents in long term care facilities (LTCFs) about their prognosis can help them prepare for the end of life. This study aimed to examine which proportion of European LTCF residents, close to death, are accurately prognosticated and consequently informed about their prognosis; and to examine factors related to accurate prognostication and discussion of prognosis. Methods: A subsample of SHELTER study data was used, consisting of: 500 residents from 5 European countries, who died within 6 months after their last assessment, and had a valid answer on the item ‘End stage disease, 6 or fewer months to live’. This item was used to indicate whether an accurate prognosis was established and discussed with residents. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine factors related to establishment and discussion of accurate prognosis. Results: 86.4% of residents close to death did not receive an accurate prognosis. Residents with cancer; fatigue; dehydration; and normal mode of nutritional intake were more likely to have an accurate prognosis established and discussed. Accurate prognostication and prognosis discussion was less likely for residents who: had a diagnosis under ‘other’; initiated interactions; and residents from Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Conclusions: The great majority of residents close to death did not receive an accurate prognosis. Prognostication tools might help clinicians to increase their prognostic accuracy and communication training might help to discuss prognosis with residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care systems that succeed in preventing long term care and hospital admissions of frail older people may substantially save on their public spending. The key might be found in high-quality care in the community. Quality Indicators (QIs) of a sufficient methodological level are a prerequisite to monitor, compare, and improve care quality. This systematic review identified existing QIs for community care for older people and assessed their methodological quality. Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and selected by two reviewers independently. Eligible publications described the development or application of QIs to assess the quality of community care for older people. Information about the QIs, the study sample, and specific setting was extracted. The methodological quality of the QI sets was assessed with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A score of 50% or higher on a domain was considered to indicate high methodological quality. Results: Searches resulted in 25 included articles, describing 17 QI sets with 567 QIs. Most indicators referred to care processes (80%) and measured clinical issues (63%), mainly about follow-up, monitoring, examinations and treatment. About two-third of the QIs focussed on specific disease groups. The methodological quality of the indicator sets varied considerably. The highest overall level was achieved on the domain ‘Additional evidence, formulation and usage’ (51%), followed by ‘Scientific evidence’ (39%) and ‘Stakeholder involvement’ (28%). Conclusion: A substantial number of QIs is available to assess the quality of community care for older people. However, generic QIs, measuring care outcomes and non-clinical aspects are relatively scarce and most QI sets do not meet standards of high methodological quality. This study can support policy makers and clinicians to navigate through a large number of QIs and select QIs for their purposes. PROSPERO Registration: 2014:CRD42014007199 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this article was to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of the two most prominent types of case management in the Netherlands (intensive case management and linkage models) against no access to case management (control group) for people with already diagnosed dementia and their informal caregivers. Methods: The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective embedded within a two year prospective, observational, controlled, cohort study with 521 informal caregivers and community-dwelling persons with dementia. Case management provided within one care organization (intensive case management model, ICMM), case management where care was provided by different care organizations within one region (Linkage model, LM), and a group with no access to case management (control) were compared. The economic evaluation related incremental costs to incremental effects regarding neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), psychological health of the informal caregiver (GHQ-12), and quality adjusted life years (QALY) of the person with dementia and informal caregiver. Results: Inverse-propensity-score-weighted models showed no significant differences in clinical or total cost outcomes between the three groups. Informal care costs were significantly lower in the ICMM group compared to both other groups. Day center costs were significantly lower in the ICMM group compared to the control group. For all outcomes, the probability that the ICMM was cost-effective in comparison with LM and the control group was larger than 0.97 at a threshold ratio of 0 €/incremental unit of effect. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that the ICMM is cost-effective compared to the control group and the LM. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution since this study was not a randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite a call for earlier diagnosis of dementia, the diagnostic yield of case finding and its impact on the mental health of patients and relatives are unclear. This study assessed the effect of a two-component intervention of case finding and subsequent care on these outcomes. Methods: In a cluster RCT we assessed whether education of family physicians (FPs; trial stage 1) resulted in more mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia diagnoses among older persons in whom FPs suspected cognitive decline and whether case finding by a practice nurse and the FP (trial stage 2) added to this number of diagnoses. In addition, we assessed mental health effects of case finding and subsequent care (trial stage 2). FPs of 15 primary care practices (PCPs = clusters) judged the cognitive status of all persons ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome, new MCI and dementia diagnoses by FPs after 12 months as indicated on a list, was assessed among all persons in whom FPs suspected cognitive impairment but without a formal diagnosis of dementia. The secondary outcome, mental health of patients and their relatives, was assessed among persons consenting to participate in trial stage 2. Trial stage 1 consisted of either intervention component 1: training FPs to diagnose MCI and dementia, or control: no training. Trial stage 2 consisted of either intervention component 2: case finding of MCI and dementia and care by a trained nurse and the FP, or control: care as usual. Results: Seven PCPs were randomized to the intervention; eight to the control condition. MCI or dementia was diagnosed in 42.3% (138/326) of persons in the intervention, and in 30.5% (98/321) in the control group (estimated difference GEE: 10.8%, OR: 1.51, 95%-CI 0.60–3.76). Among patients and relatives who consented to stage 2 of the trial (n = 145; 25%), there were no differences in mental health between the intervention and control group. Conclusions: We found a non-significant increase in the number of new MCI diagnoses. As we cannot exclude a clinically relevant effect, a larger study is warranted to replicate ours. Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions relieving the burden of caregiving may postpone or prevent patient institutionalization. The objective of this study was to determine whether a family meetings intervention was superior to usual care in postponing nursing home placement of patients with dementia. Methods: A randomized multicenter trial was conducted among 192 patients with a clinical diagnosis of dementia living at home at enrolment and their primary family caregiver. Dyads of caregivers and patients were randomized to the family meetings intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 96) condition. The intervention consisted of two individual sessions with the primary caregiver and four family counseling sessions that included family members and friends. The primary outcome measure was the time until institutionalization of the patient. Intention-to-treat as well as per protocol analyses were performed. Survival analyses were carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Results: During 18 months follow-up 23 of 96 relatives with dementia of caregivers in the intervention group and 18 of 96 relatives with dementia of caregivers in the usual care group were institutionalized. No significant difference between the intervention and the usual care group was found in time until institutionalization (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 2.74). The per-protocol analysis revealed no significant effect either (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.57), although the number of placements among the adherers was relatively low (9.4%). A subgroup effect was found for patients' age, with a significantly higher risk of institutionalization for 'younger' patients in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (adjusted HR = 4.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 22.13). Conclusion: This family meetings intervention for primary caregivers of patients with dementia did not postpone patient institutionalization more than usual care. Trial Registration: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN90163486 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Integrated Care (MIC) model compared to Usual Care (UC) in Dutch residential homes. Methods: The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a 6 month, clustered, randomized controlled trial involving 10 Dutch residential homes. Outcome measures included a quality of care weighted sum score, functional health (COOP WONCA) and Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALY). Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to analyze differences in costs and cost-effectiveness. Results: The quality of care sum score in MIC was significantly higher than in UC. The other primary outcomes showed no significant differences between the MIC and UC. The costs of providing MIC were approximately €225 per patient. Total costs were €2,061 in the MIC group and €1,656 for the UC group (mean difference €405, 95% 213; 826). The probability that the MIC was cost-effective in comparison with UC was 0.95 or more for ceiling ratios larger than €129 regarding patient related quality of care. Cost-effectiveness planes showed that the MIC model was not cost-effective compared to UC for the other outcomes. Interpretation: Clinical effect differences between the groups were small but quality of care was significantly improved in the MIC group. Short term costs for MIC were higher. Future studies should focus on longer term economic and clinical effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family caregivers of dementia patients are at increased risk of developing depression or anxiety. A multicomponent program designed to mobilize support of family networks demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing depressive symptoms in caregivers. However, the impact of an intervention consisting solely of family meetings on depression and anxiety has not yet been evaluated. This study examines the preventive effects of family meetings for primary caregivers of community-dwelling dementia patients. Methods: A randomized multicenter trial was conducted among 192 primary caregivers of community dwelling dementia patients. Caregivers did not meet the diagnostic criteria for depressive or anxiety disorder at baseline. Participants were randomized to the family meetings intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 96) condition. The intervention consisted of two individual sessions and four family meetings which occurred once every 2 to 3 months for a year. Outcome measures after 12 months were the incidence of a clinical depressive or anxiety disorder and change in depressive and anxiety symptoms (primary outcomes), caregiver burden and quality of life (secondary outcomes). Intention-to-treat as well as per protocol analyses were performed. Results: A substantial number of caregivers (72/192) developed a depressive or anxiety disorder within 12 months. The intervention was not superior to usual care either in reducing the risk of disorder onset (adjusted IRR 0.98; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.38) or in reducing depressive (randomization-by-time interaction coefficient =21.40; 95% CI 23.91 to 1.10) or anxiety symptoms (randomization-by-time interaction coefficient =20.55; 95% CI 21.59 to 0.49). The intervention did not reduce caregiver burden or their health related quality of life. Conclusion: This study did not demonstrate preventive effects of family meetings on the mental health of family caregivers. Further research should determine whether this intervention might be more beneficial if provided in a more concentrated dose, when applied for therapeutic purposes or targeted towards subgroups of caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]