Our data suggest that systematic implementation of a program to increase use of advance directives reduces health care services utilization without affecting satisfaction or mortality.

Introduction The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity. Methods PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model. Results In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11–13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45–48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46–52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14–17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10–12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24–35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16–24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5–9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 44) for FIs. Conclusions Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates. Protocol registration PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. Main results: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR ...

Advance care planning (ACP), involving discussions between patients, families and healthcare professionals on future healthcare decisions, in advance of anticipated impairment in decision-making capacity, improves satisfaction and end-of-life care while respecting patient autonomy. It usually results in the creation of a written advanced care directive (ACD). This systematic review examines the impact of ACP on several outcomes (including symptom management, quality of care and healthcare utilisation) in older adults (>65years) across all healthcare settings. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searches of the CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane databases. A total of 3646 older adults were included (range 72-88 years). Seven studies were conducted with community dwellers and the other two RCTs were conducted in nursing homes. Most studies did not implement a standardised ACD, or measure the impact on quality of end-of-life care or on the death and dying experience. All studies had some risk of bias, with most scoring poorly on the Oxford Quality Scale. While ACP interventions are well received by older adults and generally have positive effects on outcomes, this review highlights the need for well-designed RCTs that examine the economic impact of ACP and its effect on quality of care in nursing homes and other sectors.

OBJECTIVE:To compare results of a specific capacity assessment administered by the treating clinician, and a Standardized Mini-Mental Status Examination (SMMSE), with the results of expert assessments of patient capacity to consent to treatment. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study with independent comparison to expert capacity assessments. SETTING:Inpatient medical wards at an academic secondary and tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred consecutive inpatients facing a decision about a major medical treatment or an invasive medical procedure. Participants either were refusing treatment, or were accepting treatment but were not clearly capable according to the treating clinician. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The treating clinician (medical resident or student) conducted a specific capacity assessment on each participant, using a decisional aid called the Aid to Capacity Evaluation. A specific capacity assessment is a semistructured evaluation of the participant's ability to understand relevant information and appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences with regard to the specific treatment decision. Participants also received a SMMSE administered by a research nurse. Participants then had two independent expert assessments of capacity. If the two expert assessments disagreed, then an independent adjudication panel resolved the disagreement after reviewing videotapes of both expert assessments. Using the two expert assessments and the adjudication panel as the reference standard, we calculated areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios. The areas under the receiveroperating characteristic curves were 0.90 for specific capacity assessment by treating clinician and 0.93 for SMMSE score (2 p ‫؍‬ .48). For the treating clinician's specific capacity assessment, likelihood ratios for detecting incapacity were as follows: definitely incapable, 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6, 120); probably incapable, 6.1 (95% CI 2.

There remains no clear evidence as to the optimal form of laparoscopic entry in the low-risk patient. However, direct entry may be an under-utilised and safe alternative to the Veress needle and open entry technique.

Background: previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. However, there is a lack of published data from any European country on the prevalence of dementia across hospitals and between patient groups.Objective: to determine the prevalence and associations of dementia in older patients admitted to acute hospitals in Ireland.Methods: six hundred and six patients aged ≥70 years were recruited on admission to six hospitals in Cork County. Screening consisted of Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE); patients with scores <27/30 had further assessment with the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Final expert diagnosis was based on SMMSE, IQCODE and relevant medical and demographic history. Patients were screened for delirium and depression, and assessed for co-morbidity, functional ability and nutritional status.Results: of 598 older patients admitted to acute hospitals, 25% overall had dementia; with 29% in public hospitals. Prevalence varied between hospitals (P < 0.001); most common in rural hospitals and acute medical admissions. Only 35.6% of patients with dementia had a previous diagnosis. Patients with dementia were older and frailer, with higher co-morbidity, malnutrition and lower functional status (P < 0.001). Delirium was commonly superimposed on dementia (57%) on admission.Conclusion: dementia is common in older people admitted to acute hospitals, particularly in acute medical admissions, and rural hospitals, where services may be less available. Most dementia is not previously diagnosed, emphasising the necessity for cognitive assessment in older people on presentation to hospital.

BackgroundThis study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. Nilvadipine, licensed to treat hypertension, reduces amyloid production, increases regional cerebral blood flow, and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and anti-tau activity in preclinical studies, properties that could have disease-modifying effects for Alzheimer disease. We aimed to determine if nilvadipine was effective in slowing cognitive decline in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.Methods and findingsNILVAD was an 18-month, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that randomised participants between 15 May 2013 and 13 April 2015. The study was conducted at 23 academic centres in nine European countries. Of 577 participants screened, 511 were eligible and were randomised (258 to placebo, 253 to nilvadipine). Participants took a trial treatment capsule once a day after breakfast for 78 weeks. Participants were aged >50 years, meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer’s disease Criteria (NINCDS-ADRDA) for diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease, with a Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) score of ≥12 and <27. Participants were randomly assigned to 8 mg sustained-release nilvadipine or matched placebo. The a priori defined primary outcome was progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale-12 (ADAS-Cog 12) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 498), with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) as a gated co-primary outcome, eligible to be promoted to primary end point conditional on a significant effect on the ADAS-Cog 12. The analysis set had a mean age of 73 years and was 62% female. Baseline demographic and Alzheimer disease–specific characteristics were similar between treatment groups, with reported mean of 1.7 years since diagnosis and mean SMMSE of 20.4. The prespecified primary analyses failed to show any treatment benefit for nilvadipine on the co-primary outcome (p = 0.465). Decline from baseline in ADAS-Cog 12 on placebo was 0.79 (95% CI, −0.07–1.64) at 13 weeks, 6.41 (5.33–7.49) at 52 weeks, and 9.63 (8.33–10.93) at 78 weeks and on nilvadipine was 0.88 (0.02–1.74) at 13 weeks, 5.75 (4.66–6.85) at 52 weeks, and 9.41 (8.09–10.73) at 78 weeks. Exploratory analyses of the planned secondary outcomes showed no substantial effects, including on the CDR-sb or the Disability Assessment for Dementia. Nilvadipine appeared to be safe and well tolerated. Mortality was similar between groups (3 on nilvadipine, 4 on placebo); higher counts of adverse events (AEs) on nilvadipine (1,129 versus 1,030), and serious adverse events (SAEs; 146 versus 101), were observed. There were 14 withdrawals because of AEs. Major limitations of this study were that subjects had established dementia and the likelihood that non-Alzheimer subjects w...