Search

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based guidelines constitute a foundation for medical decision making. It is often unclear whether recommendations in general guidelines also apply to older people. This study aimed to develop a methodology to increase the focus on older people in the development of guidelines.METHODS: The methodology distinguishes 4 groups of older people: (1) relatively healthy older people; (2) older people with 1 additional specific (interfering) comorbid condition; (3) older people with multimorbidity; and (4) vulnerable older people.RESULTS: The level of focus on older people required may be determined by the prevalence of the disease or condition, level of suffering, social relevance, and the expectation that a guideline may improve the quality of care. A specialist in geriatric medicine may be involved in the guideline process via participation, provision of feedback on drafts, or involvement in the analysis of problem areas. Regarding the patient perspective, it is advised to involve organisations for older people or informal carers in the inventory of problem areas, and additionally to perform literature research of patient values on the subject. If the guideline focuses on older people, then the relative importance of the various outcome measures for this target group needs to be explicitly stated. Search strategies for all the 4 groups are suggested. For clinical studies that focus on the treatment of diseases that frequently occur in older people, a check should be made regarding whether these studies produce the required evidence. This can be achieved by verifying if there is sufficient representation of older people in the studies and determining if there is a separate reporting of results applying to this age group.

To determine the frequency and background of the use of assessment instruments for the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment by clinical geriatricians and internists in geriatric medicine; the secondary aim was to make an inventory of the willingness to standardise the assessment instruments used.A descriptive questionnaire study.In December 2016, we sent out a digital questionnaire (Survey Monkey) to all the hospitals in the Netherlands. Respondents were asked which instruments they used for specific domains of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, what their choice of instruments was based on, if these instruments had added value, and if they were prepared to change the instruments they used.We received 66 responses (response: 82%). The most frequently-used instruments were: Mini Mental State Examination in combination with the clock drawing test (21%), Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (45%), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living-6 (75%), Lawton and Brody (48%), Mini Nutritional Assessment(-short form) (outpatient; 56%) and Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (inpatient: 36%), Experienced Burden Informal Care (46%), Charlson Comorbidity Index (35%), Timed Up and Go (76%), and the Safety Management System (VMS) fall risk question (21%). The most frequently used instruments were used in a large number of hospitals (35-97%).The variation of tests was the greatest in the domains of cognition, malnutrition, and mobility/physical functioning. Many respondents saw the added value of a consensus set of instruments (median: 70%; interquartile range (IQR): 50-86), and most were willing to change the instruments they use (median: 80%; IQR: 65-90).This inventory shows that the instruments used in most domains were reasonably uniform. Taking the willingness to change into account, a national set of basis instruments seems to be an achievable aim.