Search

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is an age-associated skeletal muscle condition characterized by low muscle mass, strength, and physical performance. There is no international consensus on a sarcopenia definition and no contemporaneous clinical and research guidelines specific to Australia and New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR) Sarcopenia Diagnosis and Management Task Force aimed to develop consensus guidelines for sarcopenia prevention, assessment, management and research, informed by evidence, consumer opinion, and expert consensus, for use by health professionals and researchers in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: A four-phase modified Delphi process involving topic experts and informed by consumers, was undertaken between July 2020 and August 2021. Phase 1 involved a structured meeting of 29 Task Force members and a systematic literature search from which the Phase 2 online survey was developed (Qualtrics). Topic experts responded to 18 statements, using 11-point Likert scales with agreement threshold set a priori at >80%, and five multiple-choice questions. Statements with moderate agreement (70%-80%) were revised and re-introduced in Phase 3, and statements with low agreement (<70%) were rejected. In Phase 3, topic experts responded to six revised statements and three additional questions, incorporating results from a parallel Consumer Expert Delphi study. Phase 4 involved finalization of consensus statements. RESULTS: Topic experts from Australia (n = 62, 92.5%) and New Zealand (n = 5, 7.5%) with a mean ± SD age of 45.7 ± 11.8 years participated in Phase 2; 38 (56.7%) were women, 38 (56.7%) were health professionals and 27 (40.3%) were researchers/academics. In Phase 2, 15 of 18 (83.3%) statements on sarcopenia prevention, screening, assessment, management and future research were accepted with strong agreement. The strongest agreement related to encouraging a healthy lifestyle (100%) and offering tailor

BACKGROUND: Older Australians are major health service users and early diagnosis is key in the management of their health. Radiological services are an important component of diagnosis and disease management planning in older Australians, but their national utilisation of diagnostic services has never been investigated in Australia. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the utilisation of major plain X-rays by Australians ≥ 65 years old. METHODS: A population-based epidemiological evaluation and yearly cross-sectional analyses of X-ray examinations per 1,000 Australians aged ≥ 65 years old between 2009 and 2019 were conducted using publicly available Medicare Benefits Schedule and Australian Bureau of Statistics data sources. Age and sex specific incidence rate (IR) of plain X-rays per 1,000 Australians, adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a negative binomial regression model. RESULTS: During the study period, the Australian population over 65 years old increased by 39% while the crude plain X-ray utilisation by this population increased by 63%. Most X-rays were conducted on extremities or the chest. Men used chest radiography more than women, and particularly for lungs, where the incidence increased the most in those ≥ 85 years old. There was an increase in X-rays of extremities and the hip joint between 2009-10 and 2013-14 in people ≥ 85 years old. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of plain X-rays of the chest, the gastro-intestinal tract and extremities was high and has increased among older Australians between 2009-10 and 2018-19. Plain X-rays remain a commonly used diagnostic tool for conditions affecting the older population.

Sarcopenia and frailty are highly prevalent conditions in older hospitalized patients, which are associated with a myriad of adverse clinical outcomes. This paper, prepared by a multidisciplinary expert working group from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR), provides an up-to-date overview of current evidence and recommendations based on a narrative review of the literature for the screening, diagnosis, and management of sarcopenia and frailty in older patients within the hospital setting. It also includes suggestions on potential pathways to implement change to encourage widespread adoption of these evidence-informed recommendations within hospital settings. The expert working group concluded there was insufficient evidence to support any specific screening tool for sarcopenia and recommends an assessment of probable sarcopenia/sarcopenia using established criteria for all older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients or in younger patients with conditions (e.g., comorbidities) that may increase their risk of sarcopenia. Diagnosis of probable sarcopenia should be based on an assessment of low muscle strength (grip strength or five times sit-to-stand) with sarcopenia diagnosis including low muscle mass quantified from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis or in the absence of diagnostic devices, calf circumference as a proxy measure. Severe sarcopenia is represented by the addition of impaired physical performance (slow gait speed). All patients with probable sarcopenia or sarcopenia should be investigated for causes (e.g., chronic/acute disease or malnutrition), and treated accordingly. For frailty, it is recommended that all hospitalized patients aged 70 years and older be screened using a validated tool [Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Hospital Frailty Risk Score, the FRAIL scale or the Frailty Index]. Patients screened as positive for frailty should undergo further clinical assessment using th

Objectives To develop and examine the prevalence of quality and safety indicators to monitor care of older Australians receiving home care packages (HCPs), a government-funded aged care programme to support individuals to live at home independently. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Home care recipients, Australia. Participants 90 650 older individuals (aged ≥65 years old and ≥50 years old for people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent) who received a HCP between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 nationally were included. Primary and secondary outcome measures The Registry of Senior Australians developed 15 quality and safety indicators: antipsychotic use, high sedative load, chronic opioid use, antimicrobial use, premature mortality, home medicines reviews, chronic disease management plan, wait-time for HCP, falls, fractures, medication-related adverse events, weight loss/malnutrition, delirium/dementia-related hospitalisations, emergency department (ED) presentations and pressure injuries. Risk adjusted prevalence (%, 95% CI) and geographical area (statistical level 3) variation during 2016 were examined. Results In 2016, a total of 102 590 HCP episodes were included for 90 650 individuals, with 66.9% (n=68 598) level 1–2 HCP episodes (ie, for basic care needs) and 33.1% (n=33 992) level 3–4 HCP (ie, higher care needs). The most prevalent indicators included: antibiotic use (52.4%, 95% CI 52.0 to 52.7), chronic disease management plans (38.1%, 95% CI 37.8 to 38.4), high sedative load (29.1%, 95% CI 28.8 to 29.4) and ED presentations (26.4%, 95% CI 25.9 to 26.9). HCP median wait time was 134 days (IQR 41–406). Geographical variation was highest in chronic disease management plans and ED presentations (20.7% of areas outside expected range). Conclusion A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. It provides a pragmatic, efficient and low burden tool to support evidenc

Objectives: To investigate frailty prevalence, cross-sectional associations, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and cross-cultural adaptations of the FRAIL-NH scale. Design(s): Systematic review. Setting and Participants: Frail residents living in nursing homes. Method(s): MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2015 to June 2021 for primary studies that used the FRAIL-NH scale, irrespective of study designs and publication language. Result(s): Overall, 40 studies conducted across 20 countries utilized the FRAIL-NH scale; majority in Australia (n=14), followed by China (n=6), United States (n=3), and Spain (n=3). The scale has been translated and back-translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese. Various cut-offs have been used, with >=2 and >=6 being the most common cut-offs for frail and most frail, respectively. When defined using these cut-offs, frailty prevalence varied from 15.1-79.5% (frail) to 28.5-75.0% (most frail). FRAIL-NH predicted falls (n=2), hospitalization or length of stay (n=4), functional or cognitive decline (n=4), and mortality (n=9) over a median follow-up of 12 months. FRAIL-NH has been compared to 16 other scales, and was correlated with Fried's phenotype (FP), Frailty Index (FI), and FI-Lab. Four studies reported fair-to-moderate agreements between FRAIL-NH and FI, FP, and the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Ten studies assessed the sensitivity and specificity of different FRAIL-NH cutoffs, with >=8 having the highest sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (82.8%) for classifying residents as frail based on FI, while two studies reported an optimal cut-off of >=2 based on FI and FP, respectively. Conclusion(s): In seven years, the FRAIL-NH scale has been applied in 20 countries and adapted into three languages. Despite being applied with a range of cut-offs, FRAIL-NH was associated with higher care needs and demonstrated good agreement with other well-established but more complex scale