No abstract

BackgroundFrailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added.MethodsA questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (≥ 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared.ResultsThe response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income.ConclusionsThe GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.

With an ageing society, the demand for health and social care is increasing. Traditionally, staff provide care for their clients rather than with them. In contrast, reablement aims to support people to maximise their competences to manage their everyday life as independently as possible. There is considerable variation between and within countries regarding the conceptual understanding of the approach. This variation affects the ability to evaluate reablement approaches systematically, compare and aggregate findings from different studies, and hinders the development of a robust evidence. Therefore, a Delphi study was conducted in 2018/9 with the aim of reaching agreement on the characteristics, components, aims and target groups of reablement, leading towards an internationally accepted definition of reablement. The study consisted of four Web-based survey rounds. In total, 82 reablement experts from 11 countries participated, reaching agreement on five characteristics (e.g. person-centred), seven components (e.g. goal-oriented treatment plan) and five aims (e.g. increase clients’ independency). Furthermore, most experts agreed that reablement is an inclusive approach irrespective of the person's age, capacity, diagnosis or setting. Based on these features, a definition of reablement was developed, which was accepted by 79 per cent of participating experts. This study is a significant step towards providing conceptual clarity about reablement. Future research should focus on evaluating the implementation of agreed reablement components to inform practice, education and policy.

Objective To evaluate whether an interdisciplinary primary care approach for community dwelling frail older people is more effective than usual care in reducing disability and preventing (further) functional decline. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting 12 general practices in the south of the Netherlands Participants 346 frail older people (score ≥5 on Groningen Frailty Indicator) were included; 270 (78%) completed the study.Interventions General practices were randomised to the intervention or control group. Practices in the control group delivered care as usual. Practices in the intervention group implemented the "Prevention of Care" (PoC) approach, in which frail older people received a multidimensional assessment and interdisciplinary care based on a tailor made treatment plan and regular evaluation and follow-up. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was disability, assessed at 24 months by means of the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomatology, social support interactions, fear of falling, and social participation. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up.Results 193 older people in the intervention group (six practices) received the PoC approach; 153 older people in the control group (six practices) received care as usual. Follow-up rates for patients were 91% (n=316) at six months, 86% (n=298) at 12 months, and 78% (n=270) at 24 months. Mixed model multilevel analyses showed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to disability (primary outcome) and secondary outcomes. Pre-planned subgroup analyses confirmed these results. ConclusionsThis study found no evidence for the effectiveness of the PoC approach. The study contributes to the emerging body of evidence that community based care in frail older people is a challenging task.