Pathfields Medical Group, Plymouth, UK.
University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Mar 19;24(1):269. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04824-6.
Frailty interventions such as Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) can provide significant benefits for older adults living with frailty. However, incorporating such proactive interventions into primary care remains a challenge. We developed an IT-assisted CGA (i-CGA) process, which includes advance care planning (ACP). We assessed if, in older care home residents, particularly those with severe frailty, i-CGA could improve access to advance care planning discussions and reduce unplanned hospitalisations.
As a quality improvement project we progressively incorporated our i-CGA process into routine primary care for older care home residents, and used a quasi-experimental approach to assess its interim impact. Residents were assessed for frailty by General Practitioners. Proactive i-CGAs were completed, including consideration of traditional CGA domains, deprescribing and ACP discussions. Interim analysis was conducted at 1 year: documented completion, preferences and adherence to ACPs, unplanned hospital admissions, and mortality rates were compared for i-CGA and control (usual care) groups, 1-year post-i-CGA or post-frailty diagnosis respectively. Documented ACP preferences and place of death were compared using the Chi-Square Test. Unplanned hospital admissions and bed days were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
At one year, the i-CGA group comprised 196 residents (severe frailty 111, 57%); the control group 100 (severe frailty 56, 56%). ACP was documented in 100% of the i-CGA group, vs. 72% of control group, p < 0.0001. 85% (94/111) of severely frail i-CGA residents preferred not to be hospitalised if they became acutely unwell. For those with severe frailty, mean unplanned admissions in the control (usual care) group increased from 0.87 (95% confidence interval ± 0.25) per person year alive to 2.05 ± 1.37, while in the i-CGA group they fell from 0.86 ± 0.24 to 0.68 ± 0.37, p = 0.22. Preferred place of death was largely adhered to in both groups, where documented. Of those with severe frailty, 55% (62/111) of the i-CGA group died, vs. 77% (43/56) of the control group, p = 0.0013.
Proactive, community-based i-CGA can improve documentation of care home residents' ACP preferences, and may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. In severely frail residents, a mortality reduction was seen in those who received an i-CGA.
虚弱干预措施,如综合老年评估(CGA),可以为患有虚弱的老年人提供显著的益处。然而,将这些主动干预措施纳入初级保健仍然是一个挑战。我们开发了一种 IT 辅助 CGA(i-CGA)流程,其中包括预先护理计划(ACP)。我们评估了在老年护理院居民中,特别是那些患有严重虚弱的患者中,i-CGA 是否可以改善预先护理计划讨论的机会,并减少非计划性住院。
作为一项质量改进项目,我们逐步将我们的 i-CGA 流程纳入老年护理院居民的常规初级保健中,并采用准实验方法评估其中期影响。由全科医生对居民进行虚弱评估。完成主动 i-CGA,包括考虑传统 CGA 领域、药物减量和 ACP 讨论。在 1 年后进行中期分析:比较 i-CGA 和对照组(常规护理)的文档完成情况、ACP 偏好和依从性、非计划性住院和死亡率,分别为 i-CGA 或虚弱诊断后 1 年。使用卡方检验比较记录的 ACP 偏好和死亡地点。使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验分析非计划性住院和住院天数。使用 Kaplan-Meier 生存曲线估计生存率。
在 1 年时,i-CGA 组有 196 名居民(严重虚弱 111 名,57%);对照组有 100 名(严重虚弱 56 名,56%)。i-CGA 组有 100%记录了 ACP,而对照组有 72%,p<0.0001。85%(111 名中的 94 名)严重虚弱的 i-CGA 居民表示,如果他们变得急性不适,他们宁愿不住院。对于严重虚弱的患者,对照组(常规护理)中未经计划的住院人数从每活产 0.87(95%置信区间±0.25)人增加到 2.05±1.37,而 i-CGA 组从 0.86±0.24 降至 0.68±0.37,p=0.22。在两组中,记录的首选死亡地点基本得到遵守。在严重虚弱的患者中,i-CGA 组有 55%(62/111)的患者死亡,而对照组有 77%(43/56)的患者死亡,p=0.0013。
主动的、基于社区的 i-CGA 可以提高护理院居民预先护理计划偏好的记录,并可能减少非计划性住院。在严重虚弱的患者中,接受 i-CGA 的患者死亡率降低。