Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. Methods This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS 1-3), mildly frail (CFS 4-5), or frail (CFS 6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). Findings Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2•71 [95% CI 2•04-3•60], p<0•0001 and CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•54 [1•16-2•06], p=0•0030; age ≥65 years: CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2•90 [2•12-3•97], p<0•0001 and CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•64 [1•20-2•25], p=0•0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2•22 [1•08-4•57], p=0•030; CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•08 [0•48-2•39], p=0•86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•54 [1•21-1•97], p=0•0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0•71 [0•55-0•92], p=0•0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2•96 [1•98-4•43], p<0•0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0•93 [0•63-1•38], p=0•72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•27 [0•92-1•75], p=0•14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incide...

BackgroundHospital related functional decline in older patients is an underestimated problem. Thirty-five procent of 70-year old patients experience functional decline during hospital admission in comparison with pre-illness baseline. This percentage increases considerably with age.Methods/designTo address this issue, the Vlietland Ziekenhuis in The Netherlands has implemented an innovative program (PReCaP), aimed at reducing hospital related functional decline among elderly patients by offering interventions that are multidisciplinary, integrated and goal-oriented at the physical, social, and psychological domains of functional decline.DiscussionThis paper presents a detailed description of the intervention, which incorporates five distinctive elements: (1) Early identification of elderly patients with a high risk of functional decline, and if necessary followed by the start of the reactivation treatment within 48 h after hospital admission; (2) Intensive follow-up treatment for a selected patient group at the Prevention and Reactivation Centre (PRC); (3) Availability of multidisciplinary geriatric expertise; (4) Provision of support and consultation of relevant professionals to informal caregivers; (5) Intensive follow-up throughout the entire chain of care by a casemanager with geriatric expertise. Outcome and process evaluations are ongoing and results will be published in a series of future papers.Trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2317

BackgroundThe Prevention and Reactivation Care Program (PReCaP) entails an innovative multidisciplinary, integrated and goal oriented approach aimed at reducing hospital related functional decline among elderly patients. Despite calls for process evaluation as an essential component of clinical trials in the geriatric care field, studies assessing fidelity lag behind the number of effect studies. The threefold purpose of this study was (1) to systematically assess intervention fidelity of the hospital phase of the PReCaP in the first year of the intervention delivery; (2) to improve our understanding of the moderating factors and modifications affecting intervention fidelity; and (3) to explore the feasibility of the PReCaP fidelity assessment in view of the modifications.MethodsBased on the PReCaP description we developed a fidelity instrument incorporating nineteen (n=19) intervention components. A combination of data collection methods was utilized, i.e. data collection from patient records and individual Goal Attainment Scaling care plans, in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and non-participant observations. Descriptive analysis was performed to obtain levels of fidelity of each of the nineteen PReCaP components. Moderating factors were identified by using the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity.ResultsTen of the nineteen intervention components were always or often delivered to the group of twenty elderly patients. Moderating factors, such as facilitating strategies and context were useful in explaining the non- or low-adherence of particular intervention components.ConclusionsFidelity assessment was carried out to evaluate the adherence to the PReCaP in the Vlietland Ziekenhuis in the Netherlands. Given that the fidelity was assessed in the first year of PReCaP implementation it was commendable that ten of the nineteen intervention components were performed always or often. The adequate delivery of the intervention components strongly depended on various moderating factors. Since the intervention is still developing and undergoing continuous modifications, it has been concluded that the fidelity criteria should evolve with the modified intervention. Furthermore, repeated intervention fidelity assessments will be necessary to ensure a valid and reliable fidelity assessment of the PReCaP.Trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2317

Bushfire smoke contains an array of organic and inorganic compounds, including respirable and inspirable particles, aldehydes, and carbon monoxide. These compounds have been found to be a health hazard for firefighters in the United States. Despite the high frequency of bushfires in Australia, analyses of bushfire smoke components are scarce. As part of an occupational health study investigating the respiratory health effects of bushfire smoke in firefighters, air toxics sampling was undertaken in a smoke chamber and during prescribed burns. Levels of formaldehyde and acrolein were demonstrated at respectively 60% and 80% of the Short Term Exposure Limit in the smoke chamber. Carbon monoxide levels exceeded the peak limit of 400 ppm significantly. Although concentrations were lower during the prescribed burns, the study shows that Australian bushfire smoke contains air toxics of concern and provides justification for further research into the levels of air toxics measured at bushfires and the associated health impacts.

Objective: To determine whether changes in 24‐hour average background ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulates < 10 μm (PM10) increase the risk of hospital emergency department (ED) presentations for asthma among children. Design, setting and subjects: A time‐stratified case‐crossover method was used to analyse data of 603 children and young adults aged 0–19 years who were resident in a south‐west metropolitan area of Perth, Western Australia, and who had presented with asthma at any public ED within Perth between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2006. Effect sizes were assessed in relation to age group, sex and season of exposure. City‐wide background air pollution was estimated from air monitoring network data. Main outcome measures: ED presentation with asthma. Results: Patients 0–4 years with 1‐day lagged exposure to NO2 and CO showed the most significant risk of ED presentation for asthma. An interquartile range (IQR) increase in NO2 resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.70 (95% CI, 1.08–2.69). An IQR increase in CO resulted in an OR of 1.40 (95% CI, 1.06–1.84). Conclusions: The effect sizes observed in this study were higher than those of past studies, and indicated that children aged 0–4 years were the most vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. The period of exposure most clinically relevant is the day before ED presentation.

BackgroundIt is known that interprofessional collaboration is crucial for integrated care delivery, yet we are still unclear about the underlying mechanisms explaining effectiveness of integrated care delivery to older patients. In addition, we lack research comparing integrated care delivery between hospitals. Therefore, this study aims to (i) provide insight into the underlying components ‘relational coordination’ and ‘situational awareness’ of integrated care delivery and the role of team and organizational context in integrated care delivery; and (ii) compare situational awareness, relational coordination, and integrated care delivery of different hospitals in the Netherlands.MethodsThis cross-sectional study took place in 2012 among professionals from three different hospitals involved in the delivery of care to older patients. A total of 215 professionals filled in the questionnaire (42% response rate).Descriptive statistics and paired-sample t-tests were used to investigate the level of situational awareness, relational coordination, and integrated care delivery in the three different hospitals. Correlation and multilevel analyses were used to investigate the relationship between background characteristics, team context, organizational context, situational awareness, relational coordination and integrated care delivery.ResultsNo differences in background characteristics, team context, organizational context, situational awareness, relational coordination and integrated care delivery were found among the three hospitals. Correlational analysis revealed that situational awareness (r = 0.30; p < 0.01), relational coordination (r = 0.17; p < 0.05), team climate (r = 0.29; p < 0.01), formal internal communication (r = 0.46; p < 0.01), and informal internal communication (r = 0.36; p < 0.01) were positively associated with integrated care delivery. Stepwise multilevel analyses showed that formal internal communication (p < 0.001) and situational awareness (p < 0.01) were associated with integrated care delivery. Team climate was not significantly associated with integrated care delivery when situational awareness and relational coordination were included in the equation. Thus situational awareness acted as mediator between team climate and integrated care delivery among professionals delivering care to older hospitalized patients.ConclusionsThe results of this study show the importance of formal internal communication and situational awareness for quality of care delivery to hospitalized older patients.

ObjectiveTo provide insight into professionals’ perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data.ResultsFour primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients’ wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS.ConclusionsProfessionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients’ expectations of treatment and patients’ preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.

SummaryBackgroundThe Prevention and Reactivation Care Program (PReCaP) provides a novel approach targeting hospital‐related functional decline among elderly patients. Despite the high expectations, the PReCaP was not effective in preventing functional decline (ADL and iADL) among older patients. Although elderly PReCaP patients demonstrated slightly better cognitive functioning (Mini Mental State Examination; 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2–0.6]), lower depression (Geriatric Depression Scale 15; –0.9 [95% –1.1 to –0.6]), and higher perceived health (Short‐form 20; 5.6 [95% CI 2.8–8.4]) 1 year after admission than control patients, the clinical relevance was limited. Therefore, this study aims to identify factors impacting on the effectiveness of the implementation of the PReCaPand geriatric care ‘as usual’.MethodsWe conducted semi‐structured interviews with 34 professionals working with elderly patients in three hospitals, selected for their comparable patient case mix and different levels of geriatric care. Five non‐participatory observations were undertaken during multidisciplinary meetings. Patient files (n = 42), hospital protocols, and care plans were screened for elements of geriatric care. Clinical process data were analysed for PReCaP components.ResultsThe establishment of a geriatric unit and employment of geriatricians demonstrates commitment to geriatric care in hospital A. Although admission processes are comparable, early identification of frail elderly patients only takes place in hosptial A. Furthermore, nursing care in the hospital A geriatric unit excels with regard to maximizing patient independency, an important predictor for hospital‐related functional decline. Transfer nurses play a key role in arranging post‐discharge geriatric follow‐up care. Geriatric consultations are performed by geriatricians, geriatric nurses, and PReCaP case managers in hospital A. Yet hospital B consultative psychiatric nurses provide similar consultation services. The combination of standardized procedures, formalized communication channels, and advanced computerization contributes significantly to geriatric care in hospital B. Nevertheless, a small size hospital (hospital C) provides informal opportunities for information sharing and decision making, which are essential in geriatric care, given its multidisciplinary nature.ConclusionsGeriatric care for patients with multimorbidity requires a multidisciplinary approach in a geriatric unit. Geriatric care, which integrates medical and reactivation treatment, by means of early screening of risk factors for functional decline, promotion of physical activity, and adequate discharge planning, potentially reduces the incidence of functional decline in elderly patients. Yet low treatment fidelity played a major role in the ineffective implementation of the PReCaP. Treatment fidelity issues are caused by various factors, including the complexity of projects, limited attention for implementation, and inadequate interdisciplinary communication. © 2016 The Authors The In...