Background Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty. Methods The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Interventional studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Results Two thousand three hundred twenty-two articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 657 participants in total (mean age range 79–87 years). Studies were heterogeneous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led (n = 3) or multidisciplinary team-led (n = 3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72–91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving. Conclusion There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could be safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations. Trial registration The review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367.

Physical activity levels of older inpatients can be measured using accelerometers. The accuracy of the accelerometers varies between devices and population-specific validation studies are needed to determine their suitability in measuring physical activity levels of hospitalised older people. Subjective measures are less accurate but can be a practical way of measuring physical activity in a larger group of patients.

Many older people with frailty are at risk of malnutrition and poor health, yet there is evidence that improving nutrition and weight loss can reduce frailty. This will become more important as the number of older people with frailty increases worldwide in future. Identifying those at risk is challenging due to the difficulty of reaching and screening those older people most at risk, the large number of nutritional assessment tools used, and the lack of consensus on the criteria to make a diagnosis of malnutrition. The management of older people with or at risk of malnutrition should be multi-modal and multi-disciplinary, and all care staff have an important role in delivering appropriate nutritional advice and support. This paper will highlight a number of practical approaches that clinicians can take to manage malnutrition in older people with frailty in community and acute settings, including environmental changes to enhance mealtime experience, food fortification and supplementation.

BackgroundFew studies have explored the activity levels of hospitalised older people and the intra-daily activity patterns in this group have not been described.AimsTo describe the quantity and daily pattern of physical activity among hospitalised older people using two accelerometers: the ankle-worn StepWatch Activity Monitor (SAM), and the wrist-worn GENEActiv.MethodsThis cross-sectional observational study was conducted on the acute medical wards for older people in one UK hospital. Inclusion criteria: participants aged ≥ 70 years, and able to mobilise prior to admission. Participants wore both devices for up to seven consecutive days, or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Intra-daily activity levels were analysed hourly over each 24 h period.Results38 participants (mean age 87.8 years, SD 4.8) had their activity levels measured using both devices. The SAM median daily step count was 600 (IQR 240–1427). Intra-daily activity analysis showed two peak periods of ambulatory activity between 9 am–11 am and 6 pm–7 pm. With physical activity defined as ≥ 12 milli-g (GENEActiv), the median time spent above this cut-off point was 4.2 h. 62% of this activity time was only sustained for 1–5 min. Acceptability of both devices was high overall, but the wrist-worn device (96%) was more acceptable to patients than the ankle-worn device (83%).ConclusionActivity levels of these hospitalised older people were very low. Most physical activity was sustained over short periods. The intra-daily pattern of activity is an interesting finding which can help clinicians implement time-specific interventions to address the important issue of sedentary behaviour.

Objectives to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a volunteer-led mobility intervention to improve activity levels of older inpatients. Design pre-post mixed methods study. Setting acute medical wards for older people. Participants one hundred inpatients aged ≥70 years who were mobile prior to hospitalisation: 50 participants were recruited before and 50 after the intervention was established. Twenty-five participants (patients, nurses, therapists and volunteers) were interviewed to determine the acceptability of the intervention. Interventions twice daily volunteer-led mobility and bedside exercises. Main outcome measures the feasibility of delivering a volunteer-led mobility intervention, including the recruitment, training and retention of volunteers and the acceptability of the intervention to patients and healthcare professionals. Secondary outcome measures included objectively measured daily step count, length of stay, 30-day readmission and any adverse events. Results seventeen volunteers were recruited, 16 completed training and 12 were retained. Fifty participants (mean age 86 years) received the intervention, with a median daily step count of 912 steps (interquartile range [IQR] 295–1824) compared to the baseline group (n = 50, mean age 87 years) of 636 steps (IQR 298–1468). No adverse events were reported. The intervention was acceptable to patients and staff. Facilitating factors of the intervention included the social aspect of the intervention and perceived benefits by stakeholders. Barriers identified included the busy clinical environment and lack of awareness of the intervention among staff. Conclusions it was feasible to deliver a volunteer-led mobility intervention including the recruitment, training and retention of volunteers. The intervention was safe and acceptable to healthcare professionals and patients.

Background: Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty.Methods: The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.Results: 2322 articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 53 participants in total (mean age range 79–87 years). Studies were heterogenous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led (n=3) or multidisciplinary team-led (n=3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72-91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving. Conclusion: There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations. Trial registration: the review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367.

This review outlines the evidence for the involvement of volunteers in maintaining patients' mobility, identifies mobilisation protocols that have been used, the need to train volunteers and for formal evaluation of volunteers in this role. Prospero registration number: CRD42014010388.

No abstract