No abstract

Aims Physical frailty screening is more commonly performed at outpatient heart failure (HF) clinics. However, this does not incorporate other common geriatric domains. This study assesses whether a multidomain geriatric assessment, in comparison with HF severity or physical frailty, is associated with short-term adverse outcomes. Methods and results This is a prospective cohort study of 197 patients with HF (mean age 78, 44% female) attending outpatient HF clinics. HF severity was assessed with New York Heart Association class (I-II versus III-IV) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide levels. Physical frailty was assessed with the Fried frailty criteria (not frail, pre-frail, and frail). The following geriatric domains were assessed: physical function, nutrition, polypharmacy, cognition, and dependency in activities of daily living. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, diabetes and kidney function assessed 3 month risk of adverse health outcomes (emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and/or death) according to HF severity, physical frailty, and number of affected domains. Number (%) of patients with HF with no, 1, 2, and ≥3 domains affected were 36 (18%), 61 (31%), 58 (29%), and 42 (21%). Seventy-four adverse outcomes were experienced in 50 patients at follow-up. Severity of HF and physical frailty were not significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. However, increasing number of affected domains were significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Compared with no domains affected, odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1, 2, and ≥3 domains were 1.8 (0.5-6.5), 4.5 (1.3-15.4), and 7.2 (2.0-26.3) (P-trend <0.01). Further adjustment for HF severity and frailty status slightly attenuated the effect estimates (Ptrend 0.02). Conclusions Having limitations in multiple domains appears more strongly associated with short-term adverse outcomes than HF severity and physical frailty. This may illustrate the potential added value of a multidomain geriatric assessment in the evaluation and treatment of patients with HF with respect to relevant short-term health outcomes.

Older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) are at high risk of adverse health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 4 frequently used screening instruments for the prediction of adverse health outcomes among older adults in the ED.Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in patients 70 years of age presenting to the ED in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands. Screening instruments included the acutely presenting older patient screening program (APOP) (providing 2 risk scores-functional decline [APOP1] and mortality [APOP2]), the International Resident Assessment Instrument Emergendy Department screener (InterRAI ED), the Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP), and the safety management system (VMS). The primary outcome measure was a composite outcome encompassing functional decline, institutionalization, and mortality at 3 months after ED presentation. Other follow-up time points were 1 and 6 months. Analyses were performed to assess prognostic accuracy.Results: In total, 889 patients were included. After 3 months, 267 (31%) patients experienced at least 1 adverse outcome. The positive likelihood ratio ranged from 1.67 (VMS) to 3.33 (APOP1), and the negative likelihood ratio ranged from 0.41 (ISAR-HP) to 0.88 (APOP2). Sensitivity ranged from 17% (APOP2) to 74% (ISAR-HP), and specificity ranged from 63% (ISAR-HP) to 94% (APOP2). The area under the curve ranged from 0.62 (APOP2) to 0.72 (APOP1 and ISAR-HP). Calibration was reasonable for APOP1 and VMS. The prognostic accuracy was comparable across all outcomes and at all follow-up time points. Conclusion:The frailty screening instruments assessed in this study showed poor to moderate prognostic accuracy, which brings into question their usability in the prediction of adverse health outcomes among older adults who present to the ED.

Objective Old or frail acutely hospitalised patients can benefit from geriatric rehabilitation but criteria concerning referral decisions are unclear. This review presents an overview of clinical factors associated with referral to geriatric rehabilitation that may further consensus between hospital and rehabilitation professionals on triage. Design Scoping review. Methods A review was conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. The search included literature concerning a broad spectrum of acutely hospitalised patients and factors associated with their referral to geriatric rehabilitation. Results Selected abstracts were categorised into distinct geriatric rehabilitation care pathways such as stroke, hip fracture, amputation of lower limb, cardiac and oncologic rehabilitation. Abstracts on internal medical patients were further reviewed and 29 studies were included. A total of 13 studies focused on factors identifying rehabilitation needs and 16 on factors associated with outcome of geriatric rehabilitation. Triage factors were diverse and included frailty status, functional decline, cognitive symptoms and multimorbidity. Mood symptoms and living situation further specified post-acute care needs. In overview, triage factors could be characterised as demographic (n = 4), diagnosis-related (n = 8), mental (n = 6), functional (n = 10) or multi-domain (n = 12) and mapped in a transitional care pathway. Conclusions and implications Frailty and functional decline are characteristics frequently associated with referral to geriatric rehabilitation of acutely hospitalised internal medical patients. A comprehensive geriatric assessment or a simpler multi-domain set of tests reveals rehabilitation needs and approximates a functional prognosis. Professional consensus on factors and timing of triage in hospital is within reach.