A Manual of Guidelines to Score the Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale and Its Validation in Acute Hospitalized Elderly Patients

Salvi, F.; Miller, Mark D.; Grilli, Annalisa; Giorgi, Raffaella; Towers, Adele L; Morichi, Valeria; Spazzafumo, Liana; Mancinelli, Lucia; Espinosa, Emma; Rappelli, A; Dessı̀-Fulgheri, Paolo

doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x

Cited by 473 publications

(350 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

340

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…", from the Wallace health literacy assessment was used to measure health literacy status [29]. Cumulative illness rating scale geriatrics (CIRS-G) was used to assess comorbidity and illness severity [30].…”

Section: Setting and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The E-Coach technology-assisted care transition system: a pragmatic randomized trial

Ritchie

Houston

Richman

et al. 2016

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Care transitions from the hospital to home remain a vulnerable time for many patients, especially for those with heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite regular use in chronic disease management, it remains unclear how technology can best support patients during their transition from the hospital. We sought to evaluate the impact of a technology-supported care transition support program on hospitalizations, days out of the community and mortality. Using a pragmatic randomized trial, we enrolled patients (511 enrolled, 478 analyzed) hospitalized with CHF/COPD to "E-Coach," an intervention with conditionspecific customization and in-hospital and postdischarge support by a care transition nurse (CTN), interactive voice response post-discharge calls, and CTN follow-up versus usual post-discharge care (UC). The primary outcome was 30-day rehospitalization. Secondary outcomes included (1) rehospitalization and death and (2) days in the hospital and out of the community. ECoach and UC groups were similar at baseline except for gender imbalance (p = 0.02). After adjustment for gender, our primary outcome, 30-day rehospitalization rates did not differ between the E-Coach and UC groups (15.0 vs. 16.3 %, adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 0.94 [0.60, 1.49]). However, in the COPD subgroup, ECoach was associated with significantly fewer days in the hospital (0.5 vs.

show abstract

Section: Setting and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The E-Coach technology-assisted care transition system: a pragmatic randomized trial

Ritchie

Houston

Richman

et al. 2016

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comorbidity was scored according to the revised Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) [20,21].This scale assesses 14 organ systems and rates comorbidities in each organ system according to degree of severity: from grade 0 (no comorbidity) to grade 4 (extremely severe comorbidity).…”

Section: Geriatric Assessment and Frailty Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frailty Is an Independent Predictor of Survival in Older Patients With Colorectal Cancer

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is prevalent in the older population. Geriatric assessment (GA) has previously been found to predict treatment tolerance and postoperative complications in older cancer patients. The aim of this study was to explore whether GA also predicts 1-year and 5-year survival after CRC surgery in older patients and to compare the predictive power of GA with that of established prognostic factors such as TNM classification of malignant tumors (TNM) stage and age. Materials and Methods. A cohort of 178 CRC patients aged 70 and older were followed prospectively. All patients went through elective surgery, and GA was performed presurgery. The GA resulted in patients being divided into two groups: frail or nonfrail. All patients were followed for 5 years or until death. Data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier plots and the Cox proportional hazards model.

show abstract

“…This assessment consisted of an interview and medical examination by a hospital geriatrician and an interview with the geriatric nurse and additional tests for cognition, mental wellbeing, physical functioning, (I)ADL functioning, and mobility (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics, 16 Mini Mental State Examination, 17 Katz-15 (I)ADL scale, 18 Short Physical Performance Battery, 19 Geriatric Depression Scale, 20,21 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-A…”

Section: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment By Geriatricianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of Frailty after a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: Differences between Family Physicians and Geriatricians

Kempen

Melis

Perry

et al. 2015

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the outcomes of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments by family physicians and geriatricians.Methods: An explorative observational study was conducted in six family practices (12 ambulatory family practitioners) and 1 geriatric department (4 hospital-based geriatricians) from a university medical center in Nijmegen (the Netherlands). As participants, we included 587 patients aged 70 years and older and registered in the six family practices. The main outcome measures were the judgment on the following: 1) absence or presence of frailty and 2) the state (good-fair-poor) on 8 underlying domains (physical, medication, cognition, sensory, instrumental activities of daily living scale, mobility, mental, and social) according to family physicians and geriatricians based on a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment.Results: Family physicians and geriatricians agreed on frailty absence/presence in 76% of cases. Geriatricians considered elderly more often frail than family physicians did (n ‫؍‬ 294, 50% vs n ‫؍‬ 213, 36%). Disagreement on frailty status was notably found in the patients who had less distinct, either poor or good, health states. Discordant frailty judgments, in which the geriatrician rated a person as frail and the family physicians did not, were related to geriatricians more often rating physical health as impaired. Further, geriatricians' judgments of frailty were more strongly related to impaired scores on the domains cognition, sensory, mobility, and mental compared with family physicians judgments: odds ratios 79.3 versus 9.3, 7.6 versus 2.0, 25.0 versus 3.0, and 18.0 versus 2.2, respectively. Impaired physical health and problematic medication use had equally strong associations with frailty in geriatricians and family physicians: odds ratios of 11.5 versus 10.4 and 2.4 versus 2.5, respectively.Conclusions: Geriatricians more often judge patients as frail compared with family physicians and seem to evaluate the available information differently. With increasing collaboration between primary and secondary care, understanding these differences becomes increasingly relevant. (J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:240 -248.)

show abstract

A Manual of Guidelines to Score the Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale and Its Validation in Acute Hospitalized Elderly Patients

Cited by 473 publications

References 22 publications

The E-Coach technology-assisted care transition system: a pragmatic randomized trial

The E-Coach technology-assisted care transition system: a pragmatic randomized trial

Frailty Is an Independent Predictor of Survival in Older Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Diagnosis of Frailty after a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: Differences between Family Physicians and Geriatricians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About