Introduction Increased mortality has been demonstrated in older adults with COVID-19, but the effect of frailty has been unclear. Methods This multi-centre cohort study involved patients aged 18 years and older hospitalised with COVID-19, using routinely collected data. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of age, frailty, and delirium on the risk of inpatient mortality, adjusting for sex, illness severity, inflammation, and co-morbidities. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to assess the impact of age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and delirium on risk of increased care requirements on discharge, adjusting for the same variables. Results Data from 5,711 patients from 55 hospitals in 12 countries were included (median age 74, IQR 54–83; 55.2% male). The risk of death increased independently with increasing age (>80 vs 18–49: HR 3.57, CI 2.54–5.02), frailty (CFS 8 vs 1–3: HR 3.03, CI 2.29–4.00) inflammation, renal disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but not delirium. Age, frailty (CFS 7 vs 1–3: OR 7.00, CI 5.27–9.32), delirium, dementia, and mental health diagnoses were all associated with increased risk of higher care needs on discharge. The likelihood of adverse outcomes increased across all grades of CFS from 4 to 9. Conclusions Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Risk of increased care needs was also increased in survivors of COVID-19 with frailty or older age.

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> Cognitive impairment is prevalent in older inpatients but may be unrecognized. Screening to identify cognitive deficits is therefore important to optimize care. The 10-point Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) is widely used in acute hospital settings but its reliability for mild versus more severe cognitive impairment is unknown. We therefore studied the AMTS versus the 30-point Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in older (≥75 years) inpatients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The AMTS and MoCA were administered to consecutive hospitalized patients at ≥72 h after admission in a prospective observational study. MoCA testing time was recorded. Reliability of the AMTS for the reference standard defined as mild (MoCA &#x3c;26) or moderate/severe (MoCA &#x3c;18) cognitive impairment was assessed using the area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of low AMTS (&#x3c;8) for cognitive impairment were determined. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Among 205 patients (mean/SD age = 84.9/6.3 years, 96 (46.8%) male, 74 (36.1%) dementia/delirium), mean/SD AMTS was 7.2/2.3, and mean/SD MoCA was 16.1/6.2 with mean/SD testing time = 17.9/7.2 min. 96/205 (46.8%) had low AMTS whereas 174/185 (94%) had low MoCA: 74/185 (40.0%) had mild and 100 ( 54.0%) had moderate/severe impairment. Moderate/severe cognitive impairment was more prevalent in the low versus the normal AMTS group: 74/83 (90%) versus 25/102 (25%, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001). AUC of the AMTS for mild and moderate/severe impairment were 0.86 (95% CI = 0.80–0.93) and 0.88 (0.82–0.93), respectively. Specificity of AMTS &#x3c;8 for both mild and moderate/severe cognitive impairment was high (100%, 71.5–100, and 92.7%, 84.8–97.3) but sensitivity was lower (44.8%, 37.0–52.8, and 72.8%, 62.6–81.6, respectively). The negative predictive value of AMTS &#x3c;8 was therefore low for mild impairment (10.9%, 5.6–18.7) but much higher for moderate/severe impairment (75.2%, 65.7–83.3). All MoCA subtests discriminated between low and normal AMTS groups (all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001, except <i>p</i> = 0.002 for repetition) but deficits in delayed recall, verbal fluency and visuo-executive function were prevalent even in the normal AMTS group. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The AMTS is highly specific but relatively insensitive for cognitive impairment: a quarter of those with normal AMTS had moderate/severe impairment on the MoCA with widespread deficits. The AMTS cannot therefore be used as a “rule-out” test, and more detailed cognitive assessment will be required in selected patients.

ObjectivesTo determine if increased exposure to clinical specialties at medical school is associated with increased interest in pursuing that specialty as a career after foundation training.DesignA retrospective observational study.Setting31 UK medical schools were asked how much time students spend in each of the clinical specialties. We excluded two schools that were solely Graduate Entry, and two schools were excluded for insufficient information.Main outcome measuresTime spent on clinical placement from UK undergraduate medical schools, and the training destinations of graduates from each school. A general linear model was used to analyse the relationship between the number of weeks spent in a specialty at medical school and the percentage of graduates from that medical school entering each of the Core Training (CT1)/Specialty Training (ST1) specialties directly after Foundation Year 2 (FY2).ResultsStudents spend a median of 85 weeks in clinical training. This includes a median of 28 weeks on medical firms, 15 weeks in surgical firms, and 8 weeks in general practice (GP). In general, the number of training posts available in a specialty was proportionate to the number of weeks spent in medical school, with some notable exceptions including GP. Importantly, we found that the number of weeks spent in a specialty at medical school did not predict the percentage of graduates of that school training in that specialty at CT1/ST1 level (ß coefficient=0.061, p=0.228).ConclusionsThis study found that there was no correlation between the percentage of FY2 doctors appointed directly to a CT1/ST1 specialty and the length of time that they would have spent in those specialties at medical school. This suggests that curriculum adjustments focusing solely on length of time spent in a specialty in medical school would be unlikely to solve recruitment gaps in individual specialties.

No abstract

No abstract

Using a one-day stress-rest Tc-tetrofosmin protocol, a fall in LV EF between rest and stress of> 11.6% or a TID ratio of > 1.23 is likely to be clinically reliable. The upper limit of normal for TID ratio needs to be increased for patients with small LV chamber volumes.

No abstract

No abstract