Falling has major physical and emotional consequences for patients and caregivers. A fall prevention programme should focus on reducing the consequences of falling and on promoting self-efficacy and activity. The causes of falls should be discussed. The programme should include dyads of patients and caregivers because caregivers are highly involved and also suffer from anxiety. Before beginning such a programme, providers should transform negative expectations about the programme into positive ones. Finally, caregivers must learn how to deal with the consequences of their CRs' falling as well as their cognitive impairment.

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...

No abstract

No abstract

Geriatrics focuses on a variety of multiorgan problems in a heterogeneous older population. Therefore, most geriatric healthcare interventions are complex interventions. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has developed a framework to systematically design, evaluate, and implement complex interventions. This article provides an overview of this framework and illustrates its use in geriatrics by showing how it was used to develop and evaluate a fall prevention intervention. The consecutive phases of the framework are described: Phase I: Development. This phase began with a literature review, which provided the existing evidence and the theoretical understanding of the process of change. This understanding was further developed through focus groups with experts and interviews with patients and caregivers. The intervention was modeled using qualitative testing of the preliminary intervention through focus groups and through the completion of Delphi surveys by independent specialists. Phase II: Feasibility and piloting. In this phase, a pilot study was conducted in a group of patients and caregivers. The feasibility of the intervention and evaluation was also discussed in focus groups of participants and instructors. Phase III: Evaluation. The information from phases I and II shaped the design of a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of the intervention. Phase IV: Dissemination. The purpose of the final phase is to examine the implementation of the intervention into practice. The MRC framework provides an innovative and useful methodology for the development and evaluation of complex geriatric interventions that deserves greater dissemination and implementation.

No abstract

No abstract

Older recurrent fallers are characterized by increased within-task variability in reaction time and stride length while dual-tasking. In addition, variability in performance is a more sensitive measure in discrimination of recurrent falls than mean performance itself, suggesting deterioration in neurocognitive regulation mechanisms as part of the causal pathway for recurrent falls.