No abstract

Objective To evaluate the effect of specialist geriatric medical management on the outcomes of at risk older people discharged from acute medical assessment units.Design Individual patient randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. Setting Two hospitals in Nottingham and Leicester, UK.Participants 433 patients aged 70 or over who were discharged within 72 hours of attending an acute medical assessment unit and at risk of decline as indicated by a score of at least 2 on the Identification of Seniors At Risk tool.Intervention Assessment made on the acute medical assessment unit and further outpatient management by specialist physicians in geriatric medicine, including advice and support to primary care services. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of days spent at home (for those admitted from home) or days spent in the same care home (if admitted from a care home) in the 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were determined at 90 days and included mortality, institutionalisation, dependency, mental wellbeing, quality of life, and health and social care resource use. ResultsThe two groups were well matched for baseline characteristics, and withdrawal rates were similar in both groups (5%). Mean days at home over 90 days' follow-up were 80.2 days in the control group and 79.7 in the intervention group. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means was −4.6 to 3.6 days (P=0.31). No significant differences were found for any of the secondary outcomes.Conclusions This specialist geriatric medical intervention applied to an at risk population of older people attending and being discharged from acute medical units had no effect on patients' outcomes or subsequent use of secondary care or long term care.

Background: tools are required to identify high-risk older people in acute emergency settings so that appropriate services can be directed towards them.Objective: to evaluate whether the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR) predicts the clinical outcomes and health and social services costs of older people discharged from acute medical units.Design: an observational cohort study using receiver–operator curve analysis to compare baseline ISAR to an adverse clinical outcome at 90 days (where an adverse outcome was any of death, institutionalisation, hospital readmission, increased dependency in activities of daily living (decrease of 2 or more points on the Barthel ADL Index), reduced mental well-being (increase of 2 or more points on the 12-point General Health Questionnaire) or reduced quality of life (reduction in the EuroQol-5D) and high health and social services costs over 90 days estimated from routine electronic service records.Setting: two acute medical units in the East Midlands, UK.Participants: a total of 667 patients aged ≥70 discharged from acute medical units.Results: an adverse outcome at 90 days was observed in 76% of participants. The ISAR was poor at predicting adverse outcomes (AUC: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.54–0.65) and fair for health and social care costs (AUC: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59–0.81).Conclusions: adverse outcomes are common in older people discharged from acute medical units in the UK; the poor predictive ability of the ISAR in older people discharged from acute medical units makes it unsuitable as a sole tool in clinical decision-making.

Background: older people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following attendance at acute hospitals. Screening tools may help identify those most at risk. The objective of this study was to compare the predictive properties of five frailty-rating scales.Method: this was a secondary analysis of a cohort study involving participants aged 70 years and above attending two acute medical units in the East Midlands, UK. Participants were classified at baseline as frail or non-frail using five different frailty-rating scales. The ability of each scale to predict outcomes at 90 days (mortality, readmissions, institutionalisation, functional decline and a composite adverse outcome) was assessed using area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC).Results: six hundred and sixty-seven participants were studied. Frail participants according to all scales were associated with a significant increased risk of mortality [relative risk (RR) range 1.6–3.1], readmission (RR range 1.1–1.6), functional decline (RR range 1.2–2.1) and the composite adverse outcome (RR range 1.2–1.6). However, the predictive properties of the frailty-rating scales were poor, at best, for all outcomes assessed (AUC ranging from 0.44 to 0.69).Conclusion: frailty-rating scales alone are of limited use in risk stratifying older people being discharged from acute medical units.