Simplifying medication regimens for residents of aged care facilities: Pharmacist and physician use of a structured five-step medication simplification tool.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication regimen simplification using a structured approach can reduce unnecessary medication regimen complexity in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), but no studies have investigated simplification by different health professionals, nor the extent to which simplification is recommended during comprehensive medication reviews. OBJECTIVES: To compare medication regimen simplification opportunities identified by pharmacists, general medical practitioners (GPs), and geriatricians and to determine if pharmacists identified simplification opportunities during routinely conducted comprehensive medication reviews in RACFs for these same residents. METHODS: Three pharmacists, three GPs and three geriatricians independently applied the Medication Regimen Simplification Guide for Residential Aged CarE (MRS GRACE) to medication data for 83 residents taking medications at least twice daily. Interrater agreement was calculated using Fleiss's kappa. Pharmacist medication review reports for the same 83 residents were then examined to identify if the pharmacists conducting these reviews had recommended any of the simplification strategies. RESULTS: Overall, 77 residents (92.8 %) taking medications at least twice daily could have their medication regimen simplified by at least one health professional. Pharmacists independently simplified 53.0-77.1 % of medication regimens (Κ = 0.60, 95%CI 0.46-0.75, indicating substantial agreement), while GPs simplified 74.7-89.2 % (Κ = 0.44, 95%CI 0.24-0.64, moderate agreement) and geriatricians simplified 41.0-66.3 % (Κ = 0.30, 95%CI 0.16-0.44, fair agreement). No simplification recommendations were included in the reports previously prepared by pharmacists as part of the comprehensive medication reviews undertaken for these residents. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists, GPs, and geriatricians can all identify medication regimen simplification opportunities, although these opportunities differ within and between professional groups. Although opportunities to simplify medication regimens during comprehensive medication reviews exist, simplification is not currently routinely recommended by pharmacists performing these reviews in Australian RACFs.

Paid Caregiving in Dementia Care Over Time: Paid Caregiver, Family Caregiver, and Geriatrician Perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As long-term care increasingly moves from facilities to the community, paid caregivers (e.g., home health aides, other home care workers) will play an increasingly important role in the care of people with dementia. This study explores the paid caregiver role in home-based dementia care and how that role changes over time. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted individual, longitudinal interviews with the paid caregiver, family caregiver, and geriatrician of 9 people with moderate-to-severe dementia in the community; the 29 total participants were interviewed on average 3 times over 6 months, for a total of 75 interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with structured case summaries and framework analysis. RESULTS: Paid caregivers took on distinct roles in the care of each client with dementia. Despite changes in care needs over the study period, roles remained consistent. Paid caregivers, family caregivers, and geriatricians described the central role of families in driving the paid caregiver role. Paid and family caregivers collaborated in the day-to-day care of people with dementia; paid caregivers described their emotional relationships with those they cared for. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Rather than simply providing functional support, paid caregivers provide nuanced care tailored to the needs and preferences of not only each person with dementia (i.e., person-centered care), but also their family caregivers (i.e., family-centered care). Deliberate cultivation of person-centered and family-centered home care may help maximize the positive impact of paid caregivers on people with dementia and their families.

Geriatricians, general internists, and potentially inappropriate medications for a national sample of older adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are often prescribed medications that are potentially dangerous and geriatricians have specialized training in treating polypharmacy that may benefit these patients. To examine this, we compared potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing rates between geriatricians and similar general internists in the United States. METHODS: Using national cross-sectional data from 2013 to 2019, we compared annual PIM prescribing rates between 2815 outpatient geriatricians certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in 1994-2018 and general internists matched 1:1 on IM certification exam score and year, residency exam pass rate, gender, and US birth and/or US medical school. PIM prescribing was based on the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) PIM physician annual prescribing measures which consider medications flagged as potentially inappropriate in the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria® guideline. We also examined prescribing of appropriate alternative medications. Prescribing rates were calculated as the percentage a physician's patients with Medicare fee-for-service part D enrollment seen in the outpatient setting in a given year (mean: 150 patients per physician) with a PIM prescription they prescribed. RESULTS: Across 30,677 physician-year observations, geriatricians were 16.7% less likely (95% confidence interval (CI): -19.8 to -13.7, p < 0.001) to prescribe a PIM (7.2% versus 8.7% of patients respectively) and 2.7% more likely (95% CI: 0.8 to 4.5, p = 0.004) to prescribe an appropriate alternative medication (52.0% versus 50.7% of patients respectively). Lower PIM prescribing was observed for most medication sub-types including central nervous system, anticholinergic, pain, and endocrine medications. In sensitivity analyses, differences in prescribing were similar when comparing recently trained physicians with more experienced physicians. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest geriatricians in the United States prescribe PIMs at lower rates than general internists. This highlights the value geriatricians provide as well as opportunities to embed key principles of geriatric care into internal medicine training and health care delivery systems.

The perceived value of a geriatrics-surgery co-management program: Perspectives from three surgical specialties.

BACKGROUND: Geriatrics-surgery co-management (GSCM) programs have improved patient outcomes, but little is known about how they change care and whether their value varies by surgical specialty. We aimed to assess GSCM's effects as perceived by Orthopedic Trauma, Trauma, and Neurosurgery clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study utilizing electronic survey and virtual interviews at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, an academic trauma center, in Philadelphia, PA. Participants included physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, and case managers in the aforementioned specialties. Key measures were perspectives on value of GSCM, its facilitators, specialty most appropriate to manage specified medical issues, and factors affecting use. RESULTS: Of 71 eligible clinicians, 45 (63%) completed the survey and 12 (21%) of 56 purposefully sampled for specialty-role diversity were interviewed. Clinicians across specialties valued GSCM highly and similarly for impact on personal management of older adults (grand mean [standard error, SE] = 4.33 [0.24] out of 5; p = 0.80 for specialty means comparisons), patient care (mean [SE] = 4.47 [0.21]; p = 0.27), patient outcomes (mean [SE] = 4.26 [0.22]; p = 0.51), and specialty overall (mean [SE] = 4.55 [0.23]; p = 0.25) but less so for knowledge growth (mean [SE] = 3.47 [0.29]; p = 0.11). Interviewees across specialties reported that value derived from improved understanding of patient history, management of complex medical conditions, goals of care support, communication with families, and patient discharge facilitation. Interviewees also agreed on program facilitators: aligned stakeholders, shared data-driven goals, champion/administrative support, continuity and availability of geriatricians, and thorough communication. Specialties differed on three issues: (1) who should manage some medical concerns; (2) whether GSCM makes their job easier (significantly easier for Orthopedic Trauma: mean [SE] = 4.75 [0.29] vs. Trauma: mean [SE] = 4.01 [0.19]; p = 0.05); and (3) whether GSCM increases coordination difficulty (more for Neurosurgery: mean [SE] = 2.18 [0.0.58] vs. Orthopedic Trauma: mean [SE] = 0.51 [0.42]; p = 0.03 and Trauma: mean [SE] = 0.89 [0.28]; p = 0.07). Orthopedic Trauma had the most positive impression of GSCM overall. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians across diverse surgical specialties valued GSCM. Hospitals considering implementation or expansion of GSCM should attend to identified facilitators and may need to tailor to specialty.

Letter to Our Colleagues Family Practitioners, Geriatricians, and Radiologists to Increase Awareness Regarding Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus.

OBJECTIVE: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) affects elderly individuals and is characterized by a progressive deterioration of gait, urinary continence, and cognition. In most cases, it is reversible with treatment. INPH is not uncommonly an unrecognized cause of dementia. We wish to raise awareness of iNPH among primary care providers who are seeing these patients first. METHODS: We reviewed the current epidemiological data regarding iNPH as well as epidemiological data regarding Alzheimer disease. We searched for the most sensitive radiological screening test for iNPH. RESULTS: Alzheimer disease comprises 60%-70% of all dementia cases, in 2023 is affecting 6.7 million Americans, about 10.7% of people 65 and older. Epidemiological data from the Scandinavian countries confirmed that 3.7% of people older than 65 have iNPH. Surgical studies confirmed the presence of early Alzheimer's pathology in about 25% of operated patients with iNPH. Useful radiological findings of iNPH include an Evans Index greater than 0.30, and a disproportionally enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus (DESH). However, the callosal angle is thought to represent the best tool to discriminate iNPH from its mimics. CONCLUSIONS: According to the available epidemiological data iNPH is underdiagnosed. We strongly encourage the primary care physicians and geriatricians to ask the radiologist to measure the callosal angle on the initial brain computed tomography (or magnetic resonance) image. If the callosal angle is ≤71°, it is appropriate to refer the patient to neurosurgery for further diagnostic work-up.

Limitations of GPT-4 as a geriatrician in geri-oncology case conference: A case series.

Generative pre-trained transformer 4 (GPT-4) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system with a chat interface. The number of studies testing GPT-4 in clinical applications has been increasing. We hypothesized that GPT-4 would be able to suggest management strategies for medical issues in elderly oncology patients, similar to those provided by geriatricians. We compared the responses of GPT-4 to those of a geriatrician for four oncological patients. After these case conferences, none of the patients required admission for medical consultation. In three out of four scenarios, GPT-4 was able to offer a multidisciplinary approach in the first prompt. In all three scenarios, GPT-4 identified medication-related side effects and suggested appropriate medications in the first prompt. However, GPT-4 was unable to suggest initial dosages of medications to be used in the first prompt and was unable to suggest a more humanistic and non-pharmacological approach to anorexia, even with a follow-up prompt. In conclusion, GPT-4 may be used as a screening tool to provide potential rudimentary directions for management, which can then be reviewed by medical professionals before considering a formal consultation for more tailored and refined opinions from specialists.

Prevalence and associated factors of work impairment among geriatricians during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan.

AIM: This study investigated work impairment and its associated factors among geriatricians during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out using an anonymous online survey questionnaire administered to members of the Japanese Geriatric Society between October and December 2022. The questionnaire included questions regarding psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale) and work impairment (Work Functioning Impairment Scale). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine the factors associated with work impairment. Causal mediation analyses were performed to delineate the relationship between work impairment, psychological distress and fear of COVID-19. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 386 geriatricians, and work impairment was observed in 24.8% of them. Work impairment was associated with age, prefecture where the institution was located and fear of COVID-19. Mediation analysis showed that the effect of fear of COVID-19 on work impairment was almost completely mediated by psychological distress. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, work impairment was commonly observed among geriatricians. We found that fear of COVID-19 might cause work impairment; however, this effect was exerted entirely through psychological distress. This implies that interventions to prevent or reduce work impairment among doctors should mainly target psychological distress; however, the fear of COVID-19, if it causes psychological distress, should also be addressed. Managers of hospitals and long-term care facilities must take steps to protect healthcare workers' mental well-being and maintain work productivity. Therefore, understanding the factors related to work impairment might help them devise effective measures. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024; 24: 215-220.

Assessing frailty in elderly patients with hip fractures: A retrospective review comparing geriatrician and orthopedic trainee assessments.

To assess the correlation of orthopedic surgery residents compared with expert geriatricians in the assessment of frailty stage using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in patients with hip fractures. A retrospective chart review was performed from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Patients admitted with a diagnosis of hip fracture were identified. Those patients with a CFS score completed by orthopedic residents with subsequent CFS score completed by a geriatrician during their admission were extracted. Six hundred and forty-eight patients over age 60 (mean 80.5 years, 73.5% female) were admitted during the study period. Orthopaedic residents completed 286 assessments in 44% of admissions. Geriatric medicine consultation was available for 215 patients such that 93 patients were assessed by both teams. Paired CFS data were extracted from the charts and tested for agreement between the 2 groups of raters. CFS assessments by orthopedic residents and geriatrician experts were significantly different at P < .05; orthopedic residents typically assessed patients to be one CFS grade less frail than geriatricians. Despite this, the CFS assessments showed good agreement between residents and geriatricians. Orthopaedic surgery residents are reliable assessors of frailty but tend to underestimate frailty level compared with specialist geriatricians. Given the evidence to support models such as orthogeriatrics to improve outcomes for frail patients, our findings suggest that orthopedic residents may be well positioned to identify patients who could benefit from such early interventions. Our findings also support recent evidence that frailty assessments by orthopedic surgeons may have predictive validity. Low rates of initial frailty assessment by orthopedic residents suggests that further work is required to integrate more global comprehensive care.