Provision of eye care services and interventions in care homes: a narrative synthesis review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of eye disease and visual impairment in care home residents is disproportionately higher compared to the general population. Access to eye care services and treatment can be variable for this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the available evidence of services and interventions for delivering eye care to care home residents. The key review questions are: (1) What is the existing evidence for eye care interventions or services (including service configuration) for care home residents? (2) Does the provision of these interventions or services improve outcomes? METHODS: Literature search of EMBASE/MEDLINE for original papers published since 1995. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/papers. Data were extracted and evaluated using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 13 original papers met the inclusion criteria. Domiciliary optometrist services improved diagnosis and management of eye conditions, with one study showing 53% of residents benefited from direct ophthalmology intervention. Provision of interventions, such as cataract surgery, refractive error correction and low-vision rehabilitation, improved visual acuity and vision-related quality of life but did not improve cognitive or physical function, depression or health-related quality of life. There was little UK-based literature to inform eye service design or interventions to improve outcomes such as falls. CONCLUSION: Care home-based eye assessments improve the management of eye conditions. Interventions improve visual acuity and vision-related quality of life. Further research is needed to better understand current UK services, access difficulties or examples of good practice as well as to identify and test cost-effective service models for this vulnerable group.

A comprehensive geriatric assessment screening questionnaire (CGA-GOLD) for older people undergoing treatment for cancer.

Oncology services do not routinely assess broader needs of older people with cancer. This study evaluates a comprehensive geriatric assessment and comorbidity screening questionnaire (CGA-GOLD) covering evidence-based domains and quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30). Patients aged 65+ attending oncology services were recruited into (1) Observational cohort (completed CGA-GOLD, received standard oncology care), (2) Intervention cohort (responses categorised 'low-risk', 'high-risk', 'possible need' by geriatricians). N = 417 observational patients (1002 invited by post, 418 consented, age 73.9 ± 5.4) completed CGA-GOLD in 11.7 ± 7.9 min, 86.3% required no assistance, 3.1% overall missing responses. Multiple problems reported: hypertension (18.1%), diabetes (16.9%), dyspnoea on flat surfaces (27.6%), polypharmacy (46%), difficulty walking (14.9%), fatigue (40.5%), living alone (30.9%), social isolation (11.2%), recent functional dependence (27.8%), urinary incontinence (21.4%), falls (13.3%). 237/239 intervention patients completed CGA-GOLD and consecutive subsets examined. The doctor and nurse specialist independently identified same need level in 87.3% (high inter-rater reliability kappa = 0.80), taking 1-2 min per questionnaire. Need level remained unchanged following hospital notes review against responses in 90% (75/83). 'Possible need' patients were telephoned with change in 29% (16/55) to low-risk and none to high-risk, confirming high need was not being missed. CGA-GOLD screening questionnaire was acceptable to older patients, feasibly administered in NHS cancer services, described comorbidities, CGA and QOL needs, and reliably identified higher risk patients requiring further input for optimal cancer treatment.

The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people.

BACKGROUND: Although comorbidities are identified in routine oncology practice, intervention plans for the coexisting needs of older people receiving chemotherapy are rarely made. This study evaluates the impact of geriatrician-delivered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) interventions on chemotherapy toxicity and tolerance for older people with cancer. METHODS: Comparative study of two cohorts of older patients (aged 70+ years) undergoing chemotherapy in a London Hospital. The observational control group (N=70, October 2010-July 2012) received standard oncology care. The intervention group (N=65, September 2011-February 2013) underwent risk stratification using a patient-completed screening questionnaire and high-risk patients received CGA. Impact of CGA interventions on chemotherapy tolerance outcomes and grade 3+ toxicity rate were evaluated. Outcomes were adjusted for age, comorbidity, metastatic disease and initial dose reductions. RESULTS: Intervention participants undergoing CGA received mean of 6.2±2.6 (range 0-15) CGA intervention plans each. They were more likely to complete cancer treatment as planned (odds ratio (OR) 4.14 (95% CI: 1.50-11.42), P=0.006) and fewer required treatment modifications (OR 0.34 (95% CI: 0.16-0.73), P=0.006). Overall grade 3+ toxicity rate was 43.8% in the intervention group and 52.9% in the control (P=0.292). CONCLUSIONS: Geriatrician-led CGA interventions were associated with improved chemotherapy tolerance. Standard oncology care should shift towards modifying coexisting conditions to optimise chemotherapy outcomes for older people.

The impact of low-grade toxicity in older people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Significant toxicity in chemotherapy trials is usually defined as grade ⩾3. In clinical practice, however, multiple lower grade toxicities are often considered meaningful. The purpose of this observational cohort study was to identify which level of toxicity triggers treatment modification and early discontinuation of chemotherapy in older people. METHODS: Patients aged 65+ were recruited in a central London hospital. A total of 108 patients were recruited at the start of new chemotherapy treatment between October 2010 and July 2012. RESULTS: Mean age was 72.1 ± 5 years, median 72 and range 65-86 years. Of the patients, 50.9% (55) were male with gastrointestinal (49), gynaecological (18), lung (15) and other cancers (26). Chemotherapy was palliative in 59.3% (64/108), curative/ neoadjuvant/adjuvant in the others. Mean number of cycles completed was 4.2 ± 3. Treatment modifications due to toxicity occurred in 60 (55.6%) patients, 35% (21/60) of whom had no greater than grade 2 toxicity. Early treatment discontinuation because of toxicity occurred in 23 patients (21.3%), 39.1% (9/23) of whom had no greater than grade 2 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Many older patients did not complete treatment as planned. Treatment was modified/discontinued even for one or two low-grade toxicities. Further work is required to clarify whether low-grade toxicity has a greater clinical impact in older people, or whether clinicians have a lower threshold for modifying/discontinuing treatment in older people.

Are the UK oncology trainees adequately informed about the needs of older people with cancer?

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for older people with cancer are poorer in the United Kingdom compared with that in other countries. Despite this, the UK oncology curricula do not have dedicated geriatric oncology learning objectives. This cross-sectional study of UK medical oncology trainees investigates the training, confidence level and attitudes towards treating older people with cancer. METHODS: A web-based survey link was sent to the delegates of a national medical oncology trainee meeting. Responses were collected in October 2011. RESULTS: The response rate was 93% (64 out of 69). The mean age of the respondents was 32.3 years (range 27-42 years) and 64.1% were female. A total of 66.1% of the respondents reported never receiving training on the particular needs of older people with cancer, 19.4% reported to have received this training only once. Only 27.1% of the trainees were confident in assessing risk to make treatment recommendations for older patients compared with 81.4% being confident to treat younger patients. Even fewer were confident with older patients with dementia (10.2%). CONCLUSION: This first study of the UK medical oncology trainees highlights the urgent need for change in curricula to address the complex needs of older people with cancer.