Background More than half of patients undergoing emergency general surgery are older than 651. The Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty (ELF) study identified that frail patients (CFS ≥5) were vulnerable to adverse outcomes and longer hospital stays and should be reviewed by a geriatrician2. The 2021 National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) found that only 27% were reviewed by a geriatrician1. Local problem A local hospital had no routine geriatrician input to perioperative care of older people admitted under the care of general surgeons. Method/Intervention In one month prior to intervention, we noted CFS recorded once and a geriatrician involved in only 3 patients over the age of 65 (n = 35). We introduced a service comprising twice-weekly geriatrician-led multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings of all-age patients followed by selected patient ward rounds. This equated to 2.5 Programmed Activity’s (PA) per week. After another month we measured the number of patients having CFS recorded, those who had geriatrician involvement and length of stay. We also surveyed members of the MDT. Results All 31 patients aged over 65 received geriatrician input with 93.5% having a CFS recorded. Length of stay of all-age patients (n = 75) was reduced from 12.8 to 8.8 days, with the most significant reduction of 6.5 days in over 65’s (16.7 to 10.2); >200 bed days saved for older people. The MDT comments included: ‘improved MDT communication’, ‘early identification of discharge barriers’ and ‘pro-active approach’. Conclusion NELA highlights that consistent geriatrician input remains generally poor. Even a limited geriatrician-led service can be highly effective at guaranteeing review of appropriate patients in line with recommendations from NELA. Alongside targeted patient review geriatricians can support and lead decision making of all-age patients. This cost-effective strategy can reduce length of stay for young and old alike and gained excellent feedback from the MDT.
Background The number of opioid prescriptions in older patients has increased dramatically and it is recognised that opioids are the fourth most likely drug to cause preventable hospital admissions. The adverse effects of opioids occur more frequently in the geriatric population. Little is known about the impact of postoperative pain in older adults. NICE recommends paracetamol with additional opioids if there is insufficient postoperative pain relief. Multidisciplinary management with early and then daily physiotherapy is critical. We have assessed pre-morbid, immediate and prolonged use of opioids in patients following hip fracture. Local problem Pre-intervention analysis identified 79% (57/72) of all patients being discharged on opiates. At 4-months, 37% (17/46) of those were still using them. This represents 28% (17/61) of all patients. Methods Analysis of all patients (excluding poly-trauma) with hip fractures over the age of 60 years admitted to St Mary’s Hospital. Interventions Development of local guideline on analgesia prescribing; particularly focusing senior geriatrician led decision making. Prescribing oxycodone for first 72-hours and initially using nerve block. Avoidance of transdermal preparations and withdrawing stronger opioids prior to discharge. Clear instructions for GP’s on a stop date and need for community review. Patient information leaflet dispensed with all discharge opioid prescriptions. Results Post-intervention cycle; 17% (11/63) of patients were taking prescribed opioids prior to admission (similar to the pre-cohort). 52% (33/63) were discharged on opiates, down from 79%. At 4-months, of those discharged on opioids, 30% (9/30) were still using them; lower than in the first cycle (37%). Overall reduction from 28% to 16% of patients on opioids at 4-months. Conclusion The use of specific hip fracture analgesia guideline, senior geriatrician decision-making and support to community colleagues can reduce in-patient and community opiate prescribing, and stem the growing problem of opioid addiction, misuse and iatrogenic re-admission.
Aims General surgical teams are treating an increasing number of frail, older patients.1 Geriatrician involvement has shown improvement in length of stay.2 We sought to demonstrate that even with limited geriatrician involvement we could meet NELA targets of completing frailty scores, increasing frequency of geriatrician reviews and improving team education. Methods We introduced twice-weekly geriatrician-led team meetings followed by selected patient reviews to best optimise the care of older patients. Surgical trainees, nurses and allied health staff attended each meeting. The team was educated by the geriatrician about geriatric medicine and the importance of recognising frailty. They were also supported in performing independent frailty assessments. We measured frequency of frailty score recorded and geriatrician involvement pre- and post-set up of this limited service. We also conducted semi structured interviews of staff pre- and post-intervention related to educational impact. Results 94% (29/31) of patients aged over 65 had a clinical frailty score recorded post intervention compared to 9% (3/35) originally. All 31 had geriatrician involvement. Comments from the surgical team included: ‘pro-active approach to identifying frailty’, ‘early identification of barriers to discharging complex patients' and ‘improvement in understanding of geriatric giants’. Conclusions The Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty (ELF) study recognised that frailer individuals were vulnerable to adverse outcomes and longer hospital stays.3 Our limited geriatrician-led service supported surgical doctors and the MDT in understanding frailty and considering its impact. Within a short space of time we aligned with NELA recommendations, improved patient outcomes and improved MDT understanding of geriatric medicine.
Background & Aims Visiting restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in reduced and inconsistent communication with the next-of-kin of elderly inpatients. This project aimed to improve communication between doctors and patients’ relatives in accordance with the GMC Good Medical Practice guidelines which outline that doctors ‘must be considerate to those close to the patient and be sensitive and responsive in giving them information and support’. Methods We created a virtual whiteboard on an elderly care ward in an inner London hospital documenting patient demographics, details of named next-of-kin and when they had been contacted. We aimed to update next-of-kin within 48-hours of ward admission and subsequently twice weekly. The outcome was measured via identical ‘pre- and post-intervention’ questionnaires recording the next-of-kin’s satisfaction with communication from the doctors. Questionnaires included 11 questions utilising a 5-point Likert scale for satisfaction. Results were anonymised and analysed using Microsoft Excel. Results Satisfaction with communication improved in 10 of the 11 domains of the questionnaire following intervention. Cumulative satisfaction scores post-intervention (N = 13) in comparison to pre-intervention (N = 25) were closer to the total possible satisfaction score per question for these 10 domains. The mean cumulative satisfaction score across all domains was 60% post-intervention compared with 44% pre-intervention. Satisfaction following intervention was particularly improved in the domains of frequency of communication (60% post-intervention. 32.8% pre-intervention) and how adequately questions and concerns were addressed (69.2% post-intervention; 45.6% pre-intervention). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare professionals have had to adapt in communicating with patients’ next-of-kin. Our Introduction of robust standards and a virtual whiteboard to track communication resulted in improved satisfaction and proved useful in adapting to remote communication. We propose that similar practice and standards are extended across additional wards to encourage widespread optimal and consistent communication between doctors and patients’ relatives, an integral part of patient care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.