Do geriatric programs decrease long-term use of acute care beds?

Acute geriatric intervention increases the number of patients able to live at home. A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In a previous publication, we showed that treatment of acutely sick, frail elderly patients in a Geriatric Evaluation and Management Unit (GEMU) reduced mortality considerably when compared with the general Medical Wards (MW). The aim of this presentation was to study the impact of treatment in a GEMU on health care utilization.

METHODS

Acutely sick, frail patients, 75 years or older, who had been admitted as emergencies to the Department of Internal Medicine were randomized either to treatment in the GEMU (n=127) or to continued treatment in the MW (n=127). While usual treatment was given in the MW, the GEMU emphasized interdisciplinary and comprehensive assessment of all relevant disorders, early mobilization/rehabilitation, and discharge planning. After discharge from hospital, no specific follow-up was offered to any of the groups.

RESULTS

Of all subjects, 101 (80%) GEMU and 79 (64%) MW patients were still living in their own homes at three months (p=0.005); at six months the number was 91 (72%) and 74 (60%) (p=0.04) respectively. Median length of index stay was 19 days in the GEMU and 13 days in the MW group (p<0.001). After the initial stay, there were no statistically significant differences in admissions to or time spent in institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the overall positive treatment effect of acutely sick, frail elderly in a GEMU, i.e. patients treated in the GEMU had increased possibilities of living in their own homes, an effect that was mainly related to considerably reduced mortality in the GEMU group.

State of the art in geriatric rehabilitation. Part I: review of frailty and comprehensive geriatric assessment

OBJECTIVES

To increase recognition of geriatric rehabilitation and to provide recommendations for practice and future research.

DATA SOURCES

A CINAHL and 2 MEDLINE searches were conducted for 1980 to 2001. A fourth search used the Cochrane database.

STUDY SELECTION

One author reviewed the reference for relevance and another for quality. A total of 336 articles were selected. Excluded articles were unrelated to geriatric rehabilitation or were anecdotal or descriptive reports.

DATA EXTRACTION

The following major geriatric rehabilitation subtopics were identified: frailty, comprehensive geriatric assessment, admission screening, assessment tools, interdisciplinary teams, hip fracture, stroke, nutrition, dementia, and depression. Part I describes the first 5 subtopics on concepts and processes in geriatric rehabilitation. Part II focuses on the latter 5 subtopics of common clinical problems in frail older persons. A level-of-evidence framework was used to review the literature. Level 1 evidence was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or a meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs. Level 2 evidence included controlled trials without randomization, cohort, or case-control studies. Level 3 evidence involved consensus statements from experts or descriptive studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 336 articles evaluated, 108 were level 1, 39 were level 2, and 189 were level 3. Recommendations were made for each subtopic. In cases in which several articles were written on the same topic and drew similar conclusions, the authors chose those articles with the strongest level of evidence, reducing the total number of references.

CONCLUSIONS

Frail elderly patients should be screened for rehabilitation potential. Standardized tools are recommended to aid diagnosis, assessment, and outcome measurement. The team approach to geriatric rehabilitation should be interdisciplinary and use a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Medication reviews and self-medication programs may be beneficial. Future research should address cost effectiveness, consensus on outcome measures, which components of geriatric rehabilitation are most effective, screening, and what outcomes are sustainable.

What do we know about patient targeting in geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) programs?

Evidence indicates that institution-based programs for interdisciplinary geriatric evaluation and management (GEMs) improve outcomes of care, but results vary considerably between studies. Targeting (i.e., selective admission of frail elderly patient subgroups who are thought particularly to benefit) has been advocated as a means to improve the cost-effectiveness of GEM programs, and results from meta-analysis give this concept some support. Our review has several objectives: 1) describing approaches to GEM targeting and development of selection criteria; 2) assessing evidence from randomized trials concerning effects of targeting on outcome; and 3) suggesting an agenda for further research and development on GEM targeting.