Dataset Information

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency.

Search strategy

We searched the EPOC Register, Cochrane's Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AARP Ageline, and handsearched high yield journals.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) compared with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up.

Data collection and analysis

Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data. Two additional reviewers moderated.

Results

Twenty two trials evaluating 10,315 participants in six countries were identified. For the primary outcome "living at home," patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessment were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up (odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P = 0.003; number needed to treat 33) at a median follow-up of 12 months versus 1.25 (1.11 to 1.42; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 17) at a median follow-up of six months) compared with patients who received general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be living in residential care (0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.001). Subgroup interaction suggested differences between the subgroups "wards" and "teams" in favour of wards. Patients were also less likely to die or experience deterioration (0.76, 0.64 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and were more likely to experience improved cognition (standardised mean difference 0.08, 0.01 to 0.15; P = 0.02) in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group.

Conclusions

Comprehensive geriatric assessment increases patients' likelihood of being alive and in their own homes after an emergency admission to hospital. This seems to be especially true for trials of wards designated for comprehensive geriatric assessment and is associated with a potential cost reduction compared with general medical care.

SUBMITTER: Ellis G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3203013 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) interventions can improve functional ability and reduce mortality in older adults, but the effectiveness of CGA intervention on the quality of life, caregiver burden, and length of hospital stay remains unclear. The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of CGA intervention on the quality of life, length of hospital stay, and caregiver burden in older adults by conducting meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsA literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for papers published before February 29, 2020, based on inclusion criteria. Standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias analyses were also conducted.ResultsA total of 28 RCTs were included. Overall, the intervention components common in different CGA intervention models were interdisciplinary assessments and team meetings. Meta-analyses showed that CGA interventions improved the quality of life of older people (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.21; P = 0.009) compared to usual care, and subgroup analyses showed that CGA interventions improved the quality of life only in participants' age > 80 years and at follow-up ≤3 months. The change value of quality of life in the CGA intervention group was better than that in the usual care group on six dimensions of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36). Also, compared to usual care, the CGA intervention reduced the caregiver burden (SMD = - 0.56; 95% CI = - 0.97 to - 0.15, P = 0.007), but had no significant effect on the length of hospital stay.ConclusionsCGA intervention was effective in improving the quality of life and reducing caregiver burden, but did not affect the length of hospital stay. It is recommended that future studies apply the SF-36 to evaluate the impact of CGA interventions on the quality of life and provide supportive strategies for caregivers as an essential part of the CGA intervention, to find additional benefits of CGA interventions.

Project description:BackgroundDelivering hospital-level care with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the home is one approach to deal with the increased demand for bed-based hospital care, but clinical effectiveness is uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons.DesignMultisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865).Setting9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom.Patients1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission.InterventionAdmission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of living at home was measured at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were new admission to long-term residential care, death, health status, delirium, and patient satisfaction.ResultsParticipants had a mean age of 83.3 years (SD, 7.0). At 6-month follow-up, 528 of 672 (78.6%) participants in the CGA HAH group versus 247 of 328 (75.3%) participants in the hospital group were living at home (relative risk [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15]; P = 0.36); 114 of 673 (16.9%) versus 58 of 328 (17.7%) had died (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P = 0.92); and 37 of 646 (5.7%) versus 27 of 311 (8.7%) were in long-term residential care (RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; P < 0.001).LimitationThe findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected.ConclusionAdmission avoidance HAH with CGA led to similar outcomes as hospital admission in the proportion of older persons living at home as well as a decrease in admissions to long-term residential care at 6 months. This type of service can provide an alternative to hospitalization for selected older persons.Primary funding sourceThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Project description:BackgroundThe healthcare system needs effective strategies to identify the most vulnerable group of older patients, assess their needs and plan their care proactively. To evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) of older adults with a high risk of hospitalisation we conducted a prospective, pragmatic, matched-control multicentre trial at 19 primary care practices in Sweden.MethodsWe identified 1604 individuals aged 75 years and older using a new, validated algorithm that calculates a risk score for hospitalisation from electronic medical records. After a nine-month run-in period for CGA in the intervention group, 74% of the available 646 participants had accepted and received CGA, and 662 participants remained in the control group. Participants at intervention practices were invited to CGA performed by a nurse together with a physician. The CGA was adapted to the primary care context. The participants thereafter received actions according to individual needs during a two-year follow-up period. Participants at control practices received care as usual. The primary outcome was hospital care days. Secondary outcomes were number of hospital care episodes, number of outpatient visits, health care costs and mortality. Outcomes were analysed according to intention to treat and adjusted for age, gender and risk score. We used generalised linear mixed models to compare the intervention group and control group regarding all outcomes.ResultsMean age was 83.2 years, 51% of the 1308 participants were female. Relative risk reduction for hospital care days was - 22% (- 35% to - 4%, p = 0.02) during the two-year follow-up. Relative risk reduction for hospital care episodes was - 17% (- 30% to - 2%, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in outpatient visits or mortality. Health care costs were significantly lower in the intervention group, adjusted mean difference was € - 4324 (€ - 7962 to - 686, p = 0.02).Conclusions and relevanceOur findings indicate that CGA in primary care can reduce the need for hospital care days in a high-risk population of older adults. This could be of great importance in order to manage increasing prevalence of frailty and multimorbidity.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03180606 , first posted 08/06/2017.