No abstract

An FI based on International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC)-encoded routine health care data does predict the risk of adverse health outcomes in elderly population.

ObjectiveTo explore how to build and maintain the resilience of frontline healthcare professionals exposed to COVID-19 outbreak working conditions.DesignScoping review supplemented with expert interviews to validate the findings.SettingHospitals.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, bioRxiv and medRxiv systematically and grey literature for articles focusing on the impact of COVID-19-like working conditions on the physical and/or mental health of healthcare professionals in a hospital setting. Articles using an empirical design about determinants or causes of physical and/or mental health and about interventions, measures and policies to preserve physical and/or mental health were included. Four experts were interviewed to reflect on the results from the scoping review.ResultsIn total, 4471 records were screened leading to an inclusion of 73 articles. Recommendations prior to the outbreak fostering resilience included optimal provision of education and training, resilience training and interventions to create a feeling of being prepared. Recommendations during the outbreak consisted of (1) enhancing resilience by proper provision of information, psychosocial support and treatment (eg, create enabling conditions such as forming a psychosocial support team), monitoring the health status of professionals and using various forms and content of psychosocial support (eg, encouraging peer support, sharing and celebrating successes), (2) tasks and responsibilities, in which attention should be paid to kind of tasks, task mix and responsibilities as well as the intensity and weight of these tasks and (3) work patterns and working conditions. Findings of the review were validated by experts.ConclusionsRecommendations were developed on how to build and maintain resilience of frontline healthcare professionals exposed to COVID-19 outbreak working conditions. These practical and easy to implement recommendations can be used by hospitals and other healthcare organisations to foster and preserve short-term and long-term physical and mental health and employability of their professionals.

BackgroundTo better accommodate for the complex care needs of frail, older people, general practitioners must be capable of easily identifying frailty in daily clinical practice, for example, by using the frailty index (FI). To explore whether the FI is a valid and adequate screening instrument for primary care, we conducted a systematic review of its psychometric properties.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases and included original studies focusing on the criterion validity, construct validity and responsiveness of the FI when applied in community-dwelling older people. We evaluated the quality of the studies included using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. This systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA statement.ResultsOf the twenty studies identified, eighteen reported on FIs derived from research data, one reported upon an FI derived from an administrative database of home-care clients, and one reported upon an FI derived from routine primary care data. In general, the FI showed good criterion and construct validity but lacked studies on responsiveness. When compared with studies that used data gathered for research purposes, there are indications that the FI mean score and range might be different in datasets using routine primary care data; however, this finding needs further investigation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the FI is a valid frailty screening instrument. However, further research using routine Electronic Medical Record data is necessary to investigate whether the psychometric properties of the FI are generalizable to a primary care setting and to facilitate its interpretation and implementation in daily clinical practice.Trial registrationPROSPERO systematic review register number: CRD42013003737.

This explanatory mixed-methods study showed that general practitioners and practice nurses perceived the U-CARE programme as feasible in general practice. A transition was made from reactive, ad hoc care towards a proactive and preventive care approach.

OBJECTIVES:To determine the effectiveness of a proactive primary care program on the daily functioning of older people in primary care. DESIGN: Single-blind, three-arm, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. SETTING: Primary care setting, 39 general practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling people aged 60 and older (N = 3,092). INTERVENTIONS: A frailty screening intervention using routine electronic medical record data to identify older people at risk of adverse events followed by usual care from a general practitioner; after the screening intervention, a nurse-led care program consisting of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, evidence-based care planning, care coordination, and follow-up; usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was daily functioning measured using the Katz-15 (6 activities of daily living (ADLs), 8 instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), one mobility item (range 0-15)); higher scores indicate greater dependence. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, primary care consultations, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, nursing home admissions, and mortality. RESULTS: The participants in both intervention arms had less decline in daily functioning than those in the usual care arm at 12 months (mean Katz-15 score: screening arm, 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.77-1.97; screening and nurse-led care arm, 1.88, 95% CI = 1.80-1.96; control group, 2.03, 95% CI = 1.92-2.13; P = .03). No differences in quality of life were observed. CONCLUSION: Participants in both intervention groups had less decline than those in the control group at 1-year follow-up. Despite the statistically significant effect, the clinical relevance is uncertain at this point because of the small differences. Greater customizing of the intervention combined with prolonged follow-up may lead to morerobust results. J Am Geriatr Soc 64:1779-1788, 2016.Key words: primary care; daily functioning; randomized controlled trial; older people; nurse-led care program P roviding optimal care for the increasing number of older people with complex care needs is a major challenge in primary care. 1,2 The average primary care consultation rate for Dutch citizens increases from 4.3 to 6.2 per year between the ages of 60 and 75 to 10 or more per year after the age of 75. 3 The current approach in primary care is reactive and fragmented and does not meet the needs of older people as they experience a lack of overview and coordination when multiple care providers are involved. 4 These deficits result in unnecessary losses of daily functioning, suboptimal quality of life, and high healthcare expenditures. 5 A transition toward more-proactive primary care that focuses on maintaining independence and prevention of functional decline in older adults has been proposed, 6 but the critical components of a more-proactive primary care system remain unknown.The literature regarding the prevention of functional decline in older adults suggests a stepwise identification of people who are a...

Older adults were mostly disabled in physical related activities, whereas disability in more cognitive related activities was less often experienced. The impact of multimorbidity on disability in each activity was substantial, while education was not.

BackgroundEarly identification of frailty is important for proactive primary care. Currently, however, there is no consensus on which measure to use. Therefore, we examined whether a Frailty Index (FI), based on ICPC-coded primary care data, and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire identify the same older people as frail.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of 1,580 patients aged ≥ 60 years in a Dutch primary care center. Patients received a GFI questionnaire and were surveyed on their baseline characteristics. Frailty-screening software calculated their FI score. The GFI and FI scores were compared as continuous and dichotomised measures.ResultsFI data were available for 1549 patients (98%). 663 patients (42%) returned their GFI questionnaire. Complete GFI and FI scores were available for 638 patients (40.4%), mean age 73.4 years, 52.8% female. There was a positive correlation between the GFI and the FI (Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.544). Using dichotomised scores, 84.3% of patients with a low FI score also had a low GFI score. In patients with a high FI score, 55.1% also had a high GFI score. A continuous FI score accurately predicted a dichotomised GFI score (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82). Being widowed or divorced was an independent predictor of both a high GFI score in patients with a low FI score, and a high FI score in patients with a low GFI score.ConclusionsThe FI and the GFI moderately overlap in identifying frailty in community-dwelling older patients. To provide optimal proactive primary care, we suggest an initial FI screening in routine healthcare data, followed by a GFI questionnaire for patients with a high FI score or otherwise at high risk as the preferred two-step frailty screening process in primary care.