Search

Objective(s): To understand Australian health professionals' perceptions of their knowledge and previous training about frailty, as well as barriers to frailty assessment and management in their practice. Methods: A cross‐sectional online survey was developed and distributed to health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) engaged in clinical practice in Australia through convenience and snowball sampling techniques from March to May 2022. The survey consisted of five sections: frailty training and knowledge; confidence in recognising and managing adults with frailty; the importance and relevance of frailty; barriers to assessing and managing frailty in practice; and interest in further frailty training. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: The survey was taken by 736 health professionals. Less than half of respondents (44%, 321/733) reported receiving any training on frailty, with 14% (105/733) receiving training specifically focussed on frailty. Most respondents (78%, 556/712) reported 'good' or 'fair' understanding of frailty. The majority (64%, 448/694) reported being 'fairly' or 'somewhat' confident with identifying frailty. Almost all respondents (>90%) recognised frailty as having an important impact on outcomes and believed that there are beneficial interventions for frailty. Commonly reported barriers to frailty assessment in practice included 'lack of defined protocol for managing frailty' and 'lack of consensus about which frailty assessment tool to use'. Most respondents (88%, 521/595) were interested in receiving further education on frailty, with a high preference for online training. Conclusions: The findings suggest frailty is important to health professionals in Australia, and there is a need for and interest in further frailty education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Hospital patients with behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are vulnerable to a range of adverse outcomes. Hospital-based Special Care Units (SCUs) are secure dementia-enabling environments providing specialised gerontological care. Due to a scarcity of research, their value remains unconfirmed. Objective To compare hospital based SCU management of BPSD with standard care. Design Single-case multiple baseline design. Setting and participants One-hundred admissions to an 8-bed SCU over 2 years in a large Australian public hospital. Methods Repeated measures of BPSD severity were undertaken prospectively by specialist dementia nurses for patients admitted to a general ward (standard care) and transferred to the SCU. Demographic and other clinical data, including diagnoses, medication use, and care-related outcomes were obtained from medical records retrospectively. Analysis used multilevel models to regress BPSD scores onto care-setting outcomes, adjusting for time and other factors. Results When receiving standard care, patients' BPSD severity was 6.8 (95% CI 6.04–7.64) points higher for aggression, 15.6 (95% CI 13.90–17.42) points higher for the neuropsychiatric inventory, and 5.8 (95% CI 5.14–6.50) points higher for non-aggressive agitation compared to SCU. Patients receiving standard care also experienced increased odds for patient-to-nurse violence (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.67–4.09), security callouts (OR 5.39 95% CI 3.40–8.52), physical restraint (OR 17.20, 95% CI 7.94–37.25) and antipsychotic administration (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.60–7.24). Conclusion Clinically significant reductions in BPSD and psychotropic administration were associated with SCU care relative to standard ward care. These results suggest more robust investigation of hospital SCUs, and dementia-enabling design are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study. Methods A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August–September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors. Results In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2–4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include. Conclusions Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Developing effective strategies for reducing dementia risk requires a detailed understanding of the risk and protective factors associated with the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia. Objective: We aimed to systematically review the evidence for sex differences in these factors. Methods: Five online databases (PubMed/CINAHL/EMBASE/PsycINFO/Cochrane) were searched from inception until 17 October 2022 for cohort studies that focused on sex differences in risk and protective factors in the progression of MCI to dementia. Results: A total of 2,972 studies were identified, of which 12 studies from five countries were included in the systematic review. There was substantial variability in study designs, study populations and outcome measures. Sex differences were present in the associations of sociodemographic, health, psychological factors, genetic and other biomarkers with the progression of MCI to dementia. APOE ɛ4 status and depression appeared to increase the risk of progression for females, whereas history of stroke, MRI markers and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers appeared to increase the risk of progression for males. APOE ɛ2 status and marital status (unmarried) were observed to reduce risk of progression in males and females, respectively. Conclusions: The ability of studies to accurately detail risk factors for dementia are likely limited when solely controlling for the effects of sex. Although the heterogeneity and underpowered nature of the studies made it difficult to synthesize the findings for each risk factor, this study highlights the apparent need for further research examining risk factors for dementia in males and females with MCI separately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty is an important determinant of health‐care needs and outcomes for people in hospital. Objectives: To compare characteristics and predictive ability of a multidomain frailty index derived from routine health data (electronic frailty index‐acute hospital; eFI‐AH) with the hospital frailty risk score (HFRS). Methods: This retrospective study included 6771 patients aged ≥75 years admitted to an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital between October 2019 and September 2020. The eFI‐AH and the HFRS were calculated for each patient and compared with respect to characteristics, agreement, association with age and ability to predict outcomes. Results: Median eFI‐AH was 0.17 (range 0–0.66) whilst median HFRS was 3.2 (range 0–42.9). Moderate agreement was shown between the tools (Pearson's r 0.61). After adjusting for age and gender, both models had associations with long hospital stay, in‐hospital mortality, unplanned all‐cause readmission and fall‐related readmission. Specifically, the eFI‐AH had the strongest association with in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.81, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.49–3.17), whilst the HFRS was most strongly associated with long hospital stay (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.18–1.21). Both tools predicted hospital stay >10 days with good discrimination and calibration. Conclusions: Although the eFI‐AH and the HFRS did not consistently identify the same inpatients as frail, both were associated with adverse outcomes and they had comparable predictive ability for prolonged hospitalisation. These two constructs of frailty may have different implications for clinical practice and health service provision and planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the relationship between sublingual microcirculatory measures and frailty index in those attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic. Methods: Patients recruited had their sublingual microcirculation taken using sidestream dark field videomicroscopy (MicroScan, Micro Vision Medical, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and their frailty index score using a validated short form via interview. Results: A total of 44 patients were recruited with two being excluded due to microcirculatory image quality scores exceeding 10. The frailty index score indicated significant correlations with total vessel density (p <.0001, r = −.56), microvascular flow index (p =.004, r = −.43), portion of perfused vessels (p =.0004, r = −.52), heterogeneity index (p =.015, r =.32), and perfused vessel density (p <.0001, r = −.66). No correlation was shown between the frailty index and age (p =.08, r =.27). Conclusions: There is a relationship between the frailty index and microcirculatory health in those attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic, that is not confounded by age. These findings suggest that the impaired microcirculation may be an underlying cause of frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The frailty index (FI) is one way in which frailty can be quantified. While it is measured as a continuous variable, various cut-off points have been used to categorise older adults as frail or non-frail, and these have largely been validated in the acute care or community settings for older adults without cancer. This review aimed to explore which FI categories have been applied to older adults with cancer and to determine why these categories were selected by study authors. Methods: This scoping review searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases for studies which measured and categorised an FI in adults with cancer. Of the 1994 screened, 41 were eligible for inclusion. Data including oncological setting, FI categories, and the references or rationale for categorisation were extracted and analysed. Results: The FI score used to categorise participants as frail ranged from 0.06 to 0.35, with 0.35 being the most frequently used, followed by 0.25 and 0.20. The rationale for FI categories was provided in most studies but was not always relevant. Three of the included studies using an FI > 0.35 to define frailty were frequently referenced as the rationale for subsequent studies, however, the original rationale for this categorisation was unclear. Few studies sought to determine or validate optimum FI categorises in this population. Conclusion: There is significant variability in how studies have categorised the FI in older adults with cancer. An FI ≥ 0.35 to categorise frailty was used most frequently, however an FI in this range has often represented at least moderate to severe frailty in other highly-cited studies. These findings contrast with a scoping review of highly-cited studies categorising FI in older adults without cancer, where an FI ≥ 0.25 was most common. Maintaining the FI as a continuous variable is likely to be beneficial until further validation studies determine optimum FI categories in this population. Differences in how the FI has been categorised, and indeed how older adults have been labelled as 'frail', limits our ability to synthesise results and to understand the impact of frailty in cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Despite Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) being central to the work of geriatricians, little is known about geriatricians' views on CGA. This study was designed to understand how geriatricians conceptualise and practise CGA, and whether differences exist between groups (more experienced geriatricians vs. less experienced geriatricians and registrars; those practising in rural vs. metropolitan environments; in private vs. public sectors). Methods: An anonymous 90‐item electronic questionnaire was emailed to members of the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine. Results: There were 243 respondents (response rate 19%). Respondents stated that core features of CGA were multidimensional assessment (89%), implementation of a management plan (84%), and involvement of a geriatrician (70%). Important features in predicting CGA success were ability to implement health management recommendations (55%), and ease of communication with general practitioners (46%), and with the multidisciplinary team (45%). Functional decline (88%) and frailty (88%) were thought to predict patients likely to benefit from CGA, compared to age (48%) or multimorbidity (19%). Junior consultants and registrars were less likely to prioritise the importance of clinical leadership (10% vs. 30%), and more likely to report the importance of a structured format (17% vs. 7%) to CGA effectiveness. Conclusions: There was some agreement about the core features of CGA and who is likely to benefit, but little agreement on features that predict CGA success. Further research that explores these points of difference would be helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]