Search

Key summary points Aim The aim was to develop expert clinical recommendations on Geriatric Emergency Medicine to be disseminated across Europe. Findings Eight posters with expert clinical guidelines on the most important topics in Geriatric Emergency Medicine are now available through https://posters.geriemeurope.eu/. Message Expert clinical recommendations for Geriatric Emergency Medicine in Europe were created and are ready for dissemination across Europe. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00578-1., Purpose Despite the rapidly expanding knowledge in the field of Geriatric Emergency Medicine in Europe, widespread implementation of change is still lacking. Many opportunities in everyday clinical care are missed to improve care for this susceptible and growing patient group. The aim was to develop expert clinical recommendations on Geriatric Emergency Medicine to be disseminated across Europe. Methods A group of multi-disciplinary experts in the field of Geriatric Emergency Medicine in Europe was assembled. Using a modified Delphi procedure, a prioritized list of topics related to Geriatric Emergency Medicine was created. Next, a multi-disciplinary group of nurses, geriatricians and emergency physicians performed a review of recent guidelines and literature to create recommendations. These recommendations were voted upon by a group of experts and placed on visually attractive posters. The expert group identified the following eight subject areas to develop expert recommendations on: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in the Emergency Department (ED), age/frailty adjusted risk stratification, delirium and cognitive impairment, medication reviews in the ED for older adults, family involvement, ED environment, silver trauma, end of life care in the acute setting. Results Eight posters with expert clinical recommendations on the most important topics in Geriatric Emergency Medicine are now available through https://posters.geriemeurope.eu/. Conclusion Expert clinical recommendations for Geriatric Emergency Medicine may help to improve care for older patients in the Emergency Department and are ready for dissemination across Europe. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00578-1.

BackgroundCombining observation principles and geriatric care concepts is considered a promising strategy for risk-stratification of older patients with emergency care needs. We aimed to map the structure and processes of emergency observation units (EOUs) with a geriatric focus and explore to what extent the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) approach was implemented in EOUs.MethodsThe revised scoping methodology framework of Arksey and O'Malley was applied. Manuscripts reporting on dedicated areas within hospitals for observation of older patients with emergency care needs were eligible for inclusion. Electronic database searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in combination with backward snowballing. Two researchers conducted data charting independently. Data-charting forms were developed and iteratively refined. Data inconsistencies were judged by a third researcher or discussed in the research team. Quality assessment was conducted with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.ResultsSixteen quantitative studies were included reporting on fifteen EOUs in seven countries across three continents. These units were located in the ED, immediately next to the ED or remote from the ED (i.e. hospital-based). All studies reported that staffing consisted of at least three healthcare professions. Observation duration varied between 4 and 72h. Most studies focused on medical and functional assessment. Four studies reported to assess a patients' medical, functional, cognitive and social capabilities. If deemed necessary, post-discharge follow-up (e.g. community/primary care services and/or outpatient clinics) was provided in eleven studies.ConclusionThis scoping review documented that the structure and processes of EOUs with a geriatric focus are very heterogeneous and rarely cover all elements of CGA. Further research is necessary to determine how complex care principles of 'observation medicine' and 'CGA' can ideally be merged and successfully implemented in clinical care. The authors did not receive grants, institutional or corporate support to conduct this study. PH is holder of a PhD fellowship granted by Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) (1133320 N). The authors would like to thank Magdalena Jans for her contribution to development of the search strings. This work was presented at the first virtual congress of the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) (19-22 September, 2020).

Key Summary Points Aim To provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions amongst GEM professionals throughout Europe. Findings A list of 10 research questions was identified and prioritised. Message The list of research questions may serve as guidance for scientists, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects., Purpose Geriatric Emergency Medicine (GEM) focuses on delivering optimal care to (sub)acutely ill older people. This involves a multidisciplinary approach throughout the whole healthcare chain. However, the underpinning evidence base is weak and it is unclear which research questions have the highest priority. The aim of this study was to provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions among GEM professionals throughout Europe. Methods A two-stage modified Delphi approach was used. In stage 1, an online survey was administered to various professionals working in GEM both in the Emergency Department (ED) and other healthcare settings throughout Europe to make an inventory of potential research questions. In the processing phase, research questions were screened, categorised, and validated by an expert panel. Subsequently, in stage 2, remaining research questions were ranked based on relevance using a second online survey administered to the same target population, to identify the top 10 prioritised research questions. Results In response to the first survey, 145 respondents submitted 233 potential research questions. A total of 61 research questions were included in the second stage, which was completed by 176 respondents. The question with the highest priority was: Is implementation of elements of CGA (comprehensive geriatric assessment), such as screening for frailty and geriatric interventions, effective in improving outcomes for older patients in the ED? Conclusion This study presents a top 10 of high-priority research questions for a European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine. The list of research questions may serve as guidance for researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Identification of Seniors at Risk, the Flemish version of Triage Risk Screening Tool, and the interRAI Emergency Department Screener for predicting prolonged emergency department (ED) length of stay, hospitalization (following index ED stay), and unplanned ED readmission at 30 and 90 days among older (aged ≥70 years) community-dwelling adults admitted to the ED. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, observation study. SETTING: ED with embedded observation unit in University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 794 patients (median age = 80 years; 55% female) were included. MEASUREMENTS: Study nurses collected data using semistructured interviews and patient record review during ED admission. Outcome data were collected with patient record review. RESULTS: Hospitalization (following index ED stay) and unplanned ED readmission at 30 and 90 days occurred in 67% (527/787) of patients and in 12.2% (93/761) and 22.1% (168/761) of patients, respectively. For all outcomes at cutoff 2, the three screening tools had moderate to high sensitivity (range = 0.71-0.90) combined with (very) low specificity (range = 0.14-0.32) and low accuracy (range = 0.21-0.67). At all cutoffs, likelihood ratios and interval likelihood ratios had no or small impact (range = 0.46-3.95; zero was not included) on the posttest probability of the outcomes. For all outcomes, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve varied in the range of 0.49 to 0.62. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic characteristics of all screening tools were comparable. None of the tools accurately predicted the outcomes as a stand-alone index. Future studies should explore the clinical effectiveness and implementation aspects of ED-specific minimum geriatric assessment and intervention strategies. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1454-1461, 2020. ispartof: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY vol:68 issue:7 pages:1454-1461 ispartof: location:United States status: published

ispartof: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY vol:68 issue:10 pages:2414-2415 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Vulnerable older patients, such as those being delirious and/or restrained, present additional challenges in fall prevention strategies. Both conditions are associated with increased fall risk and require close follow-up, especially among older adults with pre-morbid cognitive impairments, since these patients present a higher risk of delirium and restraint use and suffer more falls and fall-related injuries when compared to their cognitively intact counterparts. Interventions to tackle these features need tailoring at patient level. This chapter overviews the best available evidence in order to reduce the risk of falling of these patients.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed-and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. Results: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. Conclusion: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.

Background In the older population falls are a common problem and a major cause of morbidity, mortality and functional decline. The etiology is often multifactorial making the identification of fall predictors essential for preventive measures. Despite this knowledge, data on falls within the older cancer population are limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of falls within 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision and to identify predictors of falls (>=1 fall) during follow-up. Methods Older patients (70 years or more) with a cancer treatment decision were included. At baseline, all patients underwent geriatric screening (G8 and Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool), followed by a geriatric assessment including living situation, activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), fall history in the past 12 months, fatigue, cognition, depression, nutrition, comorbidities and polypharmacy. Questionnaires were used to collect follow-up (2-3 months) data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors for falls (>=1 fall) during follow-up. Results At baseline, 295 (31.5%) of 937 included patients reported at least one fall in the past 12 months with 88 patients (29.5%) sustaining a major injury. During follow-up (2-3 months), 142 (17.6%) patients fell, of whom 51.4% fell recurrently and 17.6% reported a major injury. Baseline fall history in the past 12 months (OR = 3.926), fatigue (OR = 0.380), ADL dependency (OR = 0.492), geriatric risk profile by G8 (OR = 0.471) and living alone (OR = 1.631) were independent predictors of falls (>=1 fall) within 2-3 months after cancer treatment decision. Conclusion Falls are a serious problem among older cancer patients. Geriatric screening and assessment data can identify patients at risk for a fall. A patient with risk factors associated with falls should undergo further evaluation and intervention to prevent potentially injurious fall incidents.

There is an unclear relation between staffing levels and the use of physical restraints in nursing homes (NHs). A survey design was used in 570 older adults (median age = 86; 77.2% women), living on 23 wards within seven NHs. Restraint use was high (50% of residents, of which 80% were restrained on a daily basis). Multivariate analysis was conducted at the level of the individual wards. Neither staff intensity nor staff mix was a determinant of restraint use. Bathing dependency, transfer difficulties, risk for falls, frequent restlessness/agitation, and depression were independent predictors of restraint use. Patient characteristics have significant greater impact on physical restraint use than staffing levels. Therefore, improving knowledge and skills of NH staff to better deal with restlessness/agitation, mobility problems, and risk for falls is encouraged to decrease the use of physical restraints in NH residents. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 40 (12), 48–54.]

Purpose To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Methods SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care. Results GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another. Conclusion There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Materials and Methods: A survey was carried out in 9 Belgian hospitals, which participated in a national GA implementation project focusing on older patients with cancer. A newly developed questionnaire was completed by their treating physicians. Data collection comprised of reviewing hospital data, general respondent data, and treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding GA. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Eighty-two physicians from 9 hospitals participated. The GA team composition can vary substantially, with a nurse as core member. Ideally, all older patients with cancer in whom a treatment decision is necessary, should benefit from the GA. Nearly all GA domains are reported as very important. Availability of GA results can be improved. Treating physicians want geriatricians to coordinate geriatric recommendations related to the identified GA problems, and expect from trained healthcare workers (THCWs) to collect GA data, to report GA results, and to follow-up the implementation of geriatric recommendations. Conclusion: This study identifies relevant information for improving the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer in Belgium and reveals priorities for a THCW from the treating physician's point of view. To increase the effectiveness of GA, further efforts are needed to improve the implementation of geriatric recommendations.

Introduction: International guidelinesrecommendthe use ofgeriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Therefore, a Belgian pilot project (2009–2011) was set up for multicenter implementation of a uniform GA. Project evaluation revealed that the opinion of treating physicians is crucial for further improvement of GA implementation. Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding the implementation of geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. Methods: This survey was carried out in 9 Belgian hospitals, which participated in the national GA implementation project. A newly developed questionnaire was completed by physicians treating older patients with cancer. Data collection comprised hospital data, general respondent data and treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding GA. The latter comprised 5 main categories: (i) the trained healthcare worker(s) (THCWs) (i.e. one (or several) medical or paramedical graduate(s) appointed to coordinate the performance of a GA), (ii) the GA population, (iii) the GA domains, (iv) the GA results and geriatric recommendations, (v) importance and feasibility of GA related tasks for THCWs and geriatricians. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Eighty-two physicians from all hospitals participated. The GA team composition varied substantially, with a nurse as core member. GA should ideally be applied on all patients aged 70 years or older, in whom a cancer treatment decision (i.e. in all new cancer cases and all older patients with progressive disease or relapse) is required. Nearly all GA domains (i.e. social status, functionality, falls, fatigue, cognition, depression, nutrition and medication) were reported important or very important. Pain was mainly reported less important within GA. Availability of GA results can be improved, since a third of the respondents stated that it took threeor more days before theresults were available. Several treating physicians also declared that GA results had never or seldom reached them in time. Treating physicians want geriatricians to coordinate geriatric recommendations and expect from THCWs to collect GA data, to report GA results and to follow-up the implementation of geriatric recommendations. Conclusion: Described heterogeneity of a GA team and reported importance of GA domains align with international literature findings. This study adds that GA implementation can be improved through identification of priorities for the THCW and integration of geriatricians to establish geriatric recommendations. A focus of further research should be how availability of GA results can be increased. Disclosure of Interest: None declared.