Search

Background: Older people are at the greatest risk of poor outcomes after serious injury. Evidence is limited for the benefit of assessment by a geriatrician in trauma care. We aimed to determine the effect of geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes for older people admitted to hospital with serious injury. Methods: In this multicentre observational study (FiTR 2), we extracted prospectively collected data on older people (aged ≥65 years) admitted to the 23 major trauma centres in England over a 2·5 year period from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. We examined the effect of a geriatrician assessment within 72 h of admission on the primary outcome of inpatient mortality in older people admitted to hospital with serious injury, with patients censored at discharge. We analysed data using a multi-level Cox regression model and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). Findings: Between March 31, 2019, and Oct 31, 2021, 193 156 patients had records held by TARN, of whom 35 490 were included in these analyses. Median age was 81·4 years (IQR 74·1–87·6), 19 468 (54·9%) were female, and 16 022 (45·1%) were male. 28 208 (79·5%) patients had experienced a fall from less than 2 m. 16 504 (46·5%) people received a geriatrician assessment. 4419 (12·5%) patients died during hospital stay, with a median time from admission to death of 6 days (IQR 2–14). Of those who died, 1660 (37·6%) had received a geriatrician assessment and 2759 (62·4%) had not (aHR 0·43 [95% CI 0·40–0·46]; p

Purpose Risk of violence by UK military personnel, both towards non-family and family, has been found to be higher post-deployment. However, no UK research to date has attempted to examine relationship conflict and intimate partner violence (IPV) in this period. This study estimated the prevalence of and risk factors for post-deployment relationship conflict and partner violence in UK military personnel. Methods We utilised data on military personnel who had deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan (n = 5437), drawn from a large cohort study into the health and well-being of UK military personnel. Results 34.7% reported relationship conflict (arguing with partner) and 3.4% reported perpetrating physical IPV post-deployment. Males were more likely than females to report relationship conflict. There were similar rates of self-reported physical IPV perpetration among males and females. Among our male sample, factors associated with both relationship conflict and physical IPV perpetration post-deployment included being in the Army compared with the Royal Air Force, higher levels of childhood adversity, higher levels of military trauma exposure and recent mental health and alcohol misuse problems. Being over 40 at time of deployment (vs being under 25) and having deployed in a combat role were also associated with relationship conflict, but not physical IPV perpetration. Conclusions Deployment-related variables and mental health and alcohol misuse problems were found to be key factors associated with post-deployment relationship conflict and IPV. Services providing health or welfare support to military personnel must collaborate with mental health services and consider history of deployment, and particularly deployment-related trauma, in their assessments to improve identification and management of intimate partner violence and abuse in military communities.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had an extensive impact on the frail older population, with significant rates of COVID-related hospital admissions and deaths amongst this vulnerable group. There is little evidence comparing the prevalence and impact of frailty amongst patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in wave 1 vs wave 2 of the pandemic. Methods Prospective observational study of all consecutive patients admitted to Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (SRFT) between 27th February and 28th of April 2020 (wave 1), and 1st October to 10th November 2020 (wave 2) with a diagnosis of COVID-19. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, biochemical parameters, and frailty (using the Clinical Frailty Scale, score 1–4 = not frail, score 5–9 = frail) were collected. A Cox proportional hazards model associating wave and frailty with mortality was used. A logistic regression model was used to associate patient characteristics with wave. Both models adjusted for patient characteristics. Results A total of 700 patients were included (N = 429, wave 1; N = 271, wave 2). In wave 1, 42% (N = 180) were female; median age was 72; 37% (N = 160) were non-survivors, 49% (N = 212) were frail (CFS 5–9). In wave 2, 38% (N = 104) were female; median age was 73; 30% (N = 80) were non-survivors, 39% (N = 106) were frail. There was a reduction in mortality in wave 2, aHR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.53–0.94). Frailty was associated with increased mortality, after adjustment for age, wave and other patient characteristics. Patients were more frail in wave 1, and the effect of frailty was more pronounced in wave 1 vs wave 2. Conclusion Frailty is highly prevalent amongst patients of all ages admitted to SRFT with COVID-19. Higher scores of frailty are associated with increased mortality.

Background: Older people are the largest group admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Many older people are living with frailty, a risk factor for poor recovery. We aimed to examine the effect of preinjury frailty on outcomes. Methods: In this multicentre observational study (FiTR 1), we extracted prospectively collected data from all 23 adult major trauma centres in England on older people (aged ≥65 years) admitted with serious injuries over a 2·5 year period from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. Geriatricians assessed the preinjury Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a 9-point scale of fitness and frailty, with a score of 1 indicating a patient is very fit and a score of 9 indicating they are terminally ill. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality, with patients censored at hospital discharge. We used a multi-level Cox regression model fitted with adjusted hazards ratios (aHRs) to assess the association between CFS and mortality, with CFS scores being grouped as follows: a score of 1–2 indicated patients were fit; a score of 3 indicated patients were managing well; and a score of 4–8 indicated patients were living with frailty (4 being very mild, 5 being mild, 6 being moderate, and 7–8 being severe). Findings: Between March 31, 2019, and Oct 31, 2021, 193 156 patients had records were held by TARN, of whom 16 504 had eligible records. Median age was 81·9 years (IQR 74·7–88·0), 9200 (55·7%) were women, and 7304 (44·3%) were men. Of 16 438 patients with a CFS score of 1–8, 11 114 (67·6%) were living with frailty (CFS of 4–8). 1660 (10·1%) patients died during their hospital stay, with a median time from admission to death of 9 days (IQR 4–18). Compared in patients with a CFS score of 1–2, risk of inpatient death was increased in those managing well (CFS score of 3; aHR 1·82 [95% CI 1·39–2·40]), living with very mild frailty (CFS score of 4: 1·99 [1·51–2·62]), living with mild frailty (CFS score of 5: 2·61 [1·99–3·43]), living with moderate frailty (CFS score of 6: 2·97 [2·26–3·90]), and living with severe frailty (CFS score of 7–8: 4·03 [3·04–5·34]). Interpretation: Our findings support inclusion of the CFS in trauma pathways to aid patient management. Additionally, people who exercise regularly (CFS of 1–2) have better outcomes than those with lower activity levels (CFS of ≥3), supporting exercise as an intervention to improve trauma outcomes. Funding: None.

Background\ud\udFrailty is associated with long-term physical deterioration after COVID-19. Mental health recovery has been less well investigated. Early studies have shown minimal effect from the virus, although studies have not focused on whether people living with frailty may have different psychiatric outcomes. We aimed to examine the effect of living with frailty on mental health outcomes one year after hospital with COVID-19.\udMethods\ud\udWe undertook a multicentre cross-sectional study of people admitted with COVID-19. We assessed quality of life (ICECAP-O and MRC), psychiatric symptoms including: generalised anxiety (GAD-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and trauma (Trauma Screening Questionnaire). Frailty was measured using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic and linear regression to examine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and adjusted mean difference (aMD).\udResults\ud\udFrom eight hospitals 224 participants consented. Median follow-up time from admission 358 days (IQR 153–418), mean age 63.8 (SD = 13.7), 34.8% female (n = 78), and 43.7% living with frailty (n = 98 CFS 4–8). People living with frailty were significantly more likely to have symptoms of anxiety aOR = 5.72 (95% CI 1.71–19.13), depression aOR = 2.52 (95% CI 1.59–14.91), post-traumatic stress disorder aMD = 1.16 (95% CI 0.47, 1.85), and worse quality of life aMD = 1.06 (95% CI 0.76–1.36).\udLimitations\ud\udPatient-rated symptoms were captured rather than formal mental health diagnoses. CFS has not been validated in under 65-year-olds.\udConclusions\ud\udLiving with frailty is associated with significant psychiatric morbidity and reduced wellbeing one year after COVID-19 hospital admission. We recommend clinical follow-up after COVID-19 for people living with frailty should include a psychiatric assessment.

BACKGROUND Frailty is known to affect how people admitted with traumatic injuries recover during their inpatient stay and shortly after discharge. However, few studies have examined the effect of frailty on long-term mortality when adjusted for significant factors including age. We aimed to determine the effect of frailty on 1-year morality in older adults admitted with traumatic injuries. METHODS We undertook an observational study at the Severn Major Trauma Network's major trauma centre based in South West England. Patients ≥65 years old admitted between November 2018 and September 2019 with traumatic injuries were included. Isolated hip fractures and inpatient injuries were excluded. A geriatrician assessed all patients for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale. Follow-up occurred at 1 year. A multivariable Cox proportional baseline hazards model assessed the effect of frailty on time-to-mortality. The adjusted model included age, sex, multimorbidity, surgery, most injured site, injury severity, postinjury complications, and geriatrician review. RESULTS Five hundred and eighty-five patients were included. Median age was 81 years old (IQR 74-88), and median injury severity score was 13 (IQR 9-25). At 1 year 147 (25.1%) patients had died. Living with frailty was associated with mortality. The risk of dying increased with frailty severity. Compared to CFS 1-3: CFS 4 aHR = 1.73 (95% CI 0.89-3.36, p = 0.11); CFS 5 aHR = 3.82 (95% CI 2.11-6.93, p

Highlights • Mortality from COVID-19 is not affected by prescription of ACEi and / or ARBs. • Hospital length of stay is reduced in patients prescribed ACEi or ARB when diagnosed with COVID-19. • This study should provide reassurance to patients and clinicians that continuation of ACEi or ARBs is not harmful, and maybe even confer benefit in COVID-19., Objective During the COVID-19 pandemic the continuation or cessation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been contentious. Mechanisms have been proposed for both beneficial and detrimental effects. Recent studies have focused on mortality with no literature having examined length of hospital stay. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of ACEi and ARBs on COVID-19 mortality and length of hospital stay. Methods COPE (COVID-19 in Older People) is a multicenter observational study including adults of all ages admitted with either laboratory or clinically confirmed COVID-19. Routinely generated hospital data were collected. Primary outcome: mortality; secondary outcomes: Day-7 mortality and length of hospital stay. A mixed-effects multivariable Cox’s proportional baseline hazards model and logistic equivalent were used. Results 1371 patients were included from eleven centres between 27th February to 25th April 2020. Median age was 74 years [IQR 61-83]. 28.6% of patients were taking an ACEi or ARB. There was no effect of ACEi or ARB on inpatient mortality (aHR=0.85, 95%CI 0.65-1.11). For those prescribed an ACEi or ARB, hospital stay was significantly reduced (aHR=1.25, 95%CI 1.02-1.54, p=0.03) and in those with hypertension the effect was stronger (aHR=1.39, 95%CI 1.09-1.77, p=0.007). Conclusions Patients and clinicians can be reassured that prescription of an ACEi or ARB at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis is not harmful. The benefit of prescription of an ACEi or ARB in reducing hospital stay is a new finding.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection causes acute lung injury, resulting from aggressive inflammation initiated by viral replication. There has been much speculation about the potential role of non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which increase the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a binding target for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to enter the host cell, which could lead to poorer outcomes in COVID-19 disease. The aim of this study was to examine the association between routine use of NSAIDs and outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. This was a multicentre, observational study, with data collected from adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to eight UK hospitals. Of 1222 patients eligible to be included, 54 (4.4%) were routinely prescribed NSAIDs prior to admission. Univariate results suggested a modest protective effect from the use of NSAIDs, but in the multivariable analysis, there was no association between prior NSAID use and time to mortality (adjusted HR (aHR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.52&ndash, 1.53, p = 0.67) or length of stay (aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59&ndash, 1.35, p = 0.58). This study found no evidence that routine NSAID use was associated with higher COVID-19 mortality in hospitalised patients, therefore, patients should be advised to continue taking these medications until further evidence emerges. Our findings suggest that NSAID use might confer a modest benefit with regard to survival. However, as this finding was underpowered, further research is required.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health-care systems. Frailty is being used in clinical decision making for patients with COVID-19, yet the prevalence and effect of frailty in people with COVID-19 is not known. In the COVID-19 in Older PEople (COPE) study we aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty in patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and investigate its association with mortality and duration of hospital stay. Methods: This was an observational cohort study conducted at ten hospitals in the UK and one in Italy. All adults (≥18 years) admitted to participating hospitals with COVID-19 were included. Patients with incomplete hospital records were excluded. The study analysed routinely generated hospital data for patients with COVID-19. Frailty was assessed by specialist COVID-19 teams using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and patients were grouped according to their score (1–2=fit; 3–4=vulnerable, but not frail; 5–6=initial signs of frailty but with some degree of independence; and 7–9=severe or very severe frailty). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality (time from hospital admission to mortality and day-7 mortality). Findings: Between Feb 27, and April 28, 2020, we enrolled 1564 patients with COVID-19. The median age was 74 years (IQR 61–83); 903 (57·7%) were men and 661 (42·3%) were women; 425 (27·2%) had died at data cutoff (April 28, 2020). 772 (49·4%) were classed as frail (CFS 5–8) and 27 (1·7%) were classed as terminally ill (CFS 9). Compared with CFS 1–2, the adjusted hazard ratios for time from hospital admission to death were 1·55 (95% CI 1·00–2·41) for CFS 3–4, 1·83 (1·15–2·91) for CFS 5–6, and 2·39 (1·50–3·81) for CFS 7–9, and adjusted odds ratios for day-7 mortality were 1·22 (95% CI 0·63–2·38) for CFS 3–4, 1·62 (0·81–3·26) for CFS 5–6, and 3·12 (1·56–6·24) for CFS 7–9. Interpretation: In a large population of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, disease outcomes were better predicted by frailty than either age or comorbidity. Our results support the use of CFS to inform decision making about medical care in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Funding: None.

Most interventions for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are added as augmenters. We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of augmentation treatments for TRD. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) sought all randomized trials of pharmacological and psychological augmentation interventions for adults meeting the most common clinical criteria for TRD. The NMA compared the intervention effectiveness of depressive symptoms for TRD augmentation. Of 36 included trials, 27 were suitable for inclusion in NMA, and no psychological trials could be included in the absence of a common comparator. Antipsychotics (13 trials), mood stabilizers (three trials), NMDA-targeting medications (five trials), and other mechanisms (3 trials) were compared against placebo. NMDA treatments were markedly superior to placebo (ES = 0.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.16) and head-to-head NMA suggested that NMDA therapies had the highest chance of being an effective treatment option compared to other pharmacological classes. This study provides the most comprehensive evidence of augmenters' effectiveness for TRD, and our GRADE recommendations can be used to guide guidelines to optimize treatment choices. Although conclusions are limited by paucity of, and heterogeneity between, trials as well as inconsistent reports of treatment safety. This work supports the use of NMDA-targeting medications such as ketamine.

BackgroundA proportion of ex-military personnel who develop mental health and social problems end up in the Criminal Justice System. A government review called for better understanding of pathways to offending among ex-military personnel to improve services and reduce reoffending. We utilised data linkage with criminal records to examine the patterns of offending among military personnel after they leave service and the associated risk (including mental health and alcohol problems) and socio-economic protective factors.MethodQuestionnaire data from a cohort study of 13 856 randomly selected UK military personnel were linked with national criminal records to examine changes in the rates of offending after leaving service.ResultsAll types of offending increased after leaving service, with violent offending being the most prevalent. Offending was predicted by mental health and alcohol problems: probable PTSD, symptoms of common mental disorder and aggressive behaviour (verbal, property and threatened or actual physical aggression). Reduced risk of offending was associated with post-service socio-economic factors: absence of debt, stable housing and relationship satisfaction. These factors were associated with a reduced risk of offending in the presence of mental health risk factors.ConclusionsEx-military personnel are more likely to commit violent offences after leaving service than other offence-types. Mental health and alcohol problems are associated with increased risk of post-service offending, and socio-economic stability is associated with reduced risk of offending among military veterans with these problems. Efforts to reduce post-service offending should encompass management of socio-economic risk factors as well as mental health.

Background A small but significant proportion of military veterans become involved in the criminal justice system (CJS) after leaving service. Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services aim to identify vulnerable offenders in order to provide them with the health/welfare support they need, and (where possible) divert them away from custody. An administrative database of L&D service-users was utilised to compare the needs of veterans with those of non-veteran L&D service-users.Method National data collected from 29 L&D services in 2015–2016 was utilised. Of the 62,397 cases, 1,067 (2%) reported previous service in the Armed Forces, and 48,578 had no previous service history. The associations between veteran status and socio-demographic characteristics, offending behaviour, health- and mental health-problems were explored. The associations between specific types of offending and mental health problems within the veterans in the sample were also investigated.Results Veterans tended to be older, and less likely to be unemployed than non-veterans, but just as likely to have unstable living arrangements (including homelessness). Veteran status was associated with increased levels of interpersonal violence, motoring offences, anxiety disorders and hazardous drinking patterns. Veteran status was associated with decreased levels of acquisitive offending, schizophrenia, ADHD, and substance misuse. Among veterans, the presence of an anxiety disorder (umbrella term which included GAD, Phobias, PTSD etc.) was associated with increased interpersonal violence, alcohol misuse was associated with increased motoring offences, and substance use was associated with increased acquisitive offending.Conclusions Our study indicates that among offenders in the CJS who have been identified as needing health or welfare support, veterans differ from non-veterans in terms of their health and welfare needs and offending behaviour. These differences may be influenced by the impact of military service and the transition into civilian life. Our findings support the identification of military personnel within the CJS to provide appropriate interventions and support to improve outcomes and reduce offending.

Psychopathy is a disorder that is partly defined by with maladaptive interpersonal behaviour and has significant effects on treatment outcomes. A previous study (Draycott et al., ) found that higher levels of psychopathy led to a specific interpersonal 'trajectory' amongst patients in a secure psychiatric treatment programme during the first 9 months of their admission. In that programme, more psychopathic patients became increasingly dominant over time, and less psychopathic patients became increasingly hostile. This study is a longer-term follow-up and extension of that study, extending the window of observation to 33 months of treatment. It was found that the more psychopathic patients' increased dominance returned to baseline levels by 33 months, as did the less psychopathic patients' increased hostility. This suggests that treatment for this group is not idiopathic but leaves unanswered the question as to what these divergent trajectories represent.