Search

Background: Chronic conditions and multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, are increasingly common in older adults. Effective management of chronic conditions and multimorbidity in older adults requires a collaborative and person‐centred approach that considers the individual's goals, preferences and priorities. However, ensuring high‐quality personalised care for older adults with multimorbidity can be challenging due to the complexity of their care needs, limited time and a lack of patient preparation to discuss their personal goals and preferences with their healthcare team. Objective: To codesign a communication and goal‐setting tool, My Wellbeing Journal, to support personalised care planning for older adults with chronic conditions and multimorbidity. Design: We drew on an experience‐based codesign approach to develop My Wellbeing Journal. This article reports on the final end‐user feedback, which was collected via an online survey with older adults and their carers. Setting and Participants: Older adults with chronic conditions, multimorbidity and informal carers living in Australia. Personalised care planning was considered in the context of primary care. Results: A total of 88 participants completed the online survey. The survey focused on participants' feedback on the tool in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction and errors encountered. This feedback resulted in modifications to My Wellbeing Journal, which can be used during clinical encounters to facilitate communication, goal setting and progress tracking. Discussion and Conclusions: Clinicians and carers can use the tool to guide discussions with older adults about their care planning and help them set realistic goals that are meaningful to them. The findings of this study could be used to inform the development of recommendations for healthcare providers to implement person‐centred, goal‐oriented care for older adults with chronic conditions and multimorbidity. Patient or Public Contribution: Older adults living with chronic conditions and multimorbidity and their carers have contributed to the development of a tool that has the potential to significantly enhance the experience of personalised care planning. Their direct involvement as collaborators has ensured that the tool is optimised to meet the standards of effectiveness and usability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infectious disease outbreaks disrupt inpatient clinical care and have an impact on staff and patients' ability to communicate with each other and with the wider community. Digital technology may offer opportunities for communication in the inpatient setting during infectious disease outbreaks. Aim: This scoping review aimed to investigate the use of digital technology in the inpatient setting to promote communication in the early stages of an infectious disease outbreak. Methods: There were three aspects to this scoping review: (1) a database search of Ovid MEDLINE (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM) and IEEE Xplore (IEEE) exploring peer-reviewed articles, (2) a gray literature search, and (3) a media search. Results: Results focused on the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-eight peer-reviewed articles were extracted from the database search. There were three main areas of investigation: study characteristics, technology features, and benefits and barriers. Forty-four websites were searched for the gray literature search focusing on policy and guidance. Eighteen media articles were retrieved focusing on patients' use of technology and community involvement. Conclusion: Results demonstrate the diverse use of digital technology in the inpatient setting to facilitate communication during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the articles provide limited data to allow readers to fully understand and reproduce described actions. Furthermore, there was limited guidance to support clinicians to communicate using digital technology to create trusting therapeutic relationships. Areas for future development include standard reporting process for technology hardware, software, and content; and structured reporting and evaluation of the implementation of technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives despite growing support for the clinical application of frailty, including regular frailty screening for older adults, little is known about how older adults perceive frailty screening. The purpose of this study was to examine older adults' perspectives on frailty screening to inform knowledge translation and service improvements for older adults with frailty. Research Design interpretive descriptive qualitative design. Participants a total of 39 non-frail (18%), pre-frail (33%) and frail or very frail (49%) South Australian older adults aged 62–99 years, sampled from community, assisted living and residential aged care settings. Methods seven focus groups were conducted and analysed by two independent investigators using inductive thematic analysis. Results three themes were identified. First, older adults question the necessity and logic of an objective frailty measure. Second, older adults believe any efforts at frailty screening need to culminate in an action. Third, older adults emphasise that frailty screening needs to be conducted sensitively given negative perceptions of the term frailty and the potential adverse effects of frailty labelling. Discussion and Implications previous screening experiences and underlying beliefs about the nature of frailty as inevitable shaped openness to, and acceptance of, frailty screening. Findings correspond with previous research illuminating the lack of public awareness of frailty and the nascent stage of frailty screening implementation. Incorporating consumer perspectives, along with perspectives of other stakeholder groups when considering implementing frailty screening, is likely to impact uptake and optimise suitability—important considerations in person-centred care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid frailty screening remains problematic in primary care. The diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of several screening instruments has not been sufficiently established. We evaluated the DTA of several screening instruments against two reference standards: Fried's Frailty Phenotype [FP] and the Adelaide Frailty Index [AFI]), a self-reported questionnaire.Methods: DTA study within three general practices in South Australia. We randomly recruited 243 general practice patients aged 75+ years. Eligible participants were 75+ years, proficient in English and community-dwelling. We excluded those who were receiving palliative care, hospitalized or living in a residential care facility.We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, Youden Index and area under the curve (AUC) for: Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Scale Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC], Polypharmacy [POLY], PRISMA-7 [P7], Reported Edmonton Frail Scale [REFS], Self-Rated Health [SRH] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) against FP [3+ criteria] and AFI [>0.21].Results: We obtained valid data for 228 participants, with missing scores for index tests multiply imputed. Frailty prevalence was 17.5% frail, 56.6% prefrail [FP], and 48.7% frail, 29.0% prefrail [AFI]. Of the index tests KC (Se: 85.0% [70.2-94.3]; Sp: 73.4% [66.5-79.6]) and REFS (Se: 87.5% [73.2-95.8]; Sp: 75.5% [68.8-81.5]), both against FP, showed sufficient diagnostic accuracy according to our prespecified criteria.Conclusions: Two screening instruments-the KC and REFS, show the most promise for wider implementation within general practice, enabling a personalized approach to care for older people with frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against a backdrop of aging populations worldwide, it has become increasingly important to identify frailty screening instruments suitable for community settings. Self‐reported and/or administered instruments might offer significant simplicity and efficiency advantages over clinician‐administered instruments, but their comparative diagnostic test accuracy has yet to be systematically examined. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of self‐reported and/or self‐administered frailty screening instruments against two widely accepted frailty reference standards (the frailty phenotype and the Frailty Index) within community‐dwelling older adult populations. We carried out a systematic search of the Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations, Open Grey and GreyLit databases up to April 2017 (with an updated search carried out over May–July 2018) to identify studies reporting comparison of self‐reported and/or self‐administered frailty screening instruments against an appropriate reference standard, with a minimum sensitivity threshold of 80% and specificity threshold of 60%. We identified 24 studies that met our selection criteria. Four self‐reported screening instruments across three studies met minimum sensitivity and specificity thresholds. However, in most cases, study design considerations limited the reliability and generalizability of the results. Additionally, meta‐analysis was not carried out, because no more than three studies were available for any of the unique combinations of index tests and reference standards. Although the present study has shown that a number of self‐reported frailty screening instruments reported sensitivity and specificity within a desirable range for community application, additional diagnostic test accuracy studies are required. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 14–24. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rapid population ageing is a demographic trend being experienced and documented worldwide. While increased health screening and assessment may help mitigate the burden of illness in older people, issues such as misdiagnosis may affect access to interventions. This study aims to elicit the values and preferences of evidence-informed older people living in the community on early screening for common health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia and frailty). The study will proceed in three Phases: (1) generating recommendations of older people through a series of Citizens' Juries; (2) obtaining feedback from a diverse range of stakeholder groups on the jury findings; and (3) co-designing a set of Knowledge Translation resources to facilitate implementation into research, policy and practice. Conditions were chosen to reflect common health conditions characterised by increasing prevalence with age, but which have been underexamined through a Citizens' Jury methodology., Methods and Analysis: This study will be conducted in three Phases-(1) Citizens' Juries, (2) Policy Roundtables and (3) Production of Knowledge Translation resources. First, older people aged 50+ (n=80), including those from traditionally hard-to-reach and diverse groups, will be purposively recruited to four Citizen Juries. Second, representatives from a range of key stakeholder groups, including consumers and carers, health and aged care policymakers, general practitioners, practice nurses, geriatricians, allied health practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers and community and aged care providers (n=40) will be purposively recruited for two Policy Roundtables. Finally, two researchers and six purposively recruited consumers will co-design Knowledge Translation resources. Thematic analysis will be performed on documentation and transcripts., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained through the Torrens University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants will give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through development of a policy brief and lay summary, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and seminars., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Infectious disease outbreaks disrupt inpatient clinical care and have an impact on staff and patients' ability to communicate with each other and with the wider community. Digital technology may offer opportunities for communication in the inpatient setting during infectious disease outbreaks. Aim: This scoping review aimed to investigate the use of digital technology in the inpatient setting to promote communication in the early stages of an infectious disease outbreak. Methods: There were three aspects to this scoping review: (1) a database search of Ovid MEDLINE (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM) and IEEE Xplore (IEEE) exploring peer-reviewed articles, (2) a gray literature search, and (3) a media search. Results: Results focused on the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-eight peer-reviewed articles were extracted from the database search. There were three main areas of investigation: study characteristics, technology features, and benefits and barriers. Forty-four websites were searched for the gray literature search focusing on policy and guidance. Eighteen media articles were retrieved focusing on patients' use of technology and community involvement. Conclusion: Results demonstrate the diverse use of digital technology in the inpatient setting to facilitate communication during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the articles provide limited data to allow readers to fully understand and reproduce described actions. Furthermore, there was limited guidance to support clinicians to communicate using digital technology to create trusting therapeutic relationships. Areas for future development include standard reporting process for technology hardware, software, and content; and structured reporting and evaluation of the implementation of technologies.