Geriatric Assessment Is Associated With Reduced Mortality at 1 Year for Older Adults Admitted to a Major Trauma Center: A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of geriatrician review on 1-year mortality in older adults admitted with trauma. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been associated with improved outcomes in older adults with hip fracture, but has not been evaluated in a broader trauma population. METHODS: Trauma patients aged ≥ 65years admitted to an English Major Trauma Centre between November 2018 and September 2019 were included. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: no geriatric assessment, reactive geriatric assessment, and proactive CGA. The primary outcome was time to mortality, secondary outcomes were time to discharge and frequency of complications. Analyses were adjusted for factors known to be associated with outcomes including age, frailty, injury severity, and complications. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-five patients were included (no geriatric assessment = 125; reactive geriatric assessment = 134; proactive CGA = 326): median age was 81 years (IQR 74-88); 326 (55.7%) were women; 297 (50.8%) were living with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥5). Median Injury Severity Score was 13 (IQR9-25). At 1-year follow-up, 147 (25.1%) patients had died. In multivariate analysis, both types of geriatric assessment were associated with reduced mortality [reactive aHR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.53; proactive adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.64]. There was no association between either type of geriatric assessment and length of stay (reactive aHR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.62-1.15; proactive aHR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Geriatrician assessment is associated with reduced mortality in older adults admitted following trauma. Further research should focus on defining optimal models of geriatrician intervention.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in perioperative care: a systematic review of a complex intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a complex intervention applied to older people with evidence of benefit in medical populations. The aim of this systematic review was to describe how CGA is applied to surgical populations in randomised controlled trials. This will provide a basis for design of future studies focused on optimising CGA as a complex intervention. SETTING: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: A systematic search was performed for studies of CGA in the perioperative period across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception to March 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Any randomised controlled trials of perioperative CGA versus 'standard care' were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative description of CGA. RESULTS: 12 121 titles and abstracts were screened, 68 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 22 articles included, reporting on 13 trials. 10 trials focused on inpatients with hip fracture, with 7 of these delivering CGA on a geriatric medicine ward, 3 on a surgical ward. The remaining three trials were in elective general surgery all delivering CGA on a surgical ward. CGA components, duration of intervention and personnel delivering the intervention were highly variable across the different studies. Trials favoured postoperative delivery of CGA (11/13). Only four trials reported data on adherence to the CGA intervention. CONCLUSIONS: CGA as an intervention is variably described and delivered in randomised controlled trials in the perioperative setting. The reporting of both the intervention and standard care is often poor with little focus on adherence. Future research should focus on clearly defining and standardising the intervention as well as measuring adherence within trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221797.

A national study of 23 major trauma centres to investigate the effect of a geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes in older people admitted with serious injury in England (FiTR 2): a multicentre observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Older people are at the greatest risk of poor outcomes after serious injury. Evidence is limited for the benefit of assessment by a geriatrician in trauma care. We aimed to determine the effect of geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes for older people admitted to hospital with serious injury. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study (FiTR 2), we extracted prospectively collected data on older people (aged ≥65 years) admitted to the 23 major trauma centres in England over a 2·5 year period from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. We examined the effect of a geriatrician assessment within 72 h of admission on the primary outcome of inpatient mortality in older people admitted to hospital with serious injury, with patients censored at discharge. We analysed data using a multi-level Cox regression model and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2019, and Oct 31, 2021, 193 156 patients had records held by TARN, of whom 35 490 were included in these analyses. Median age was 81·4 years (IQR 74·1-87·6), 19 468 (54·9%) were female, and 16 022 (45·1%) were male. 28 208 (79·5%) patients had experienced a fall from less than 2 m. 16 504 (46·5%) people received a geriatrician assessment. 4419 (12·5%) patients died during hospital stay, with a median time from admission to death of 6 days (IQR 2-14). Of those who died, 1660 (37·6%) had received a geriatrician assessment and 2759 (62·4%) had not (aHR 0·43 [95% CI 0·40-0·46]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Geriatrician assessment was associated with a reduced risk of death for seriously injured older people. These data support routine provision of geriatrician assessment in trauma care. Future research should explore the key components of a geriatrician assessment paired with a health economic evaluation. FUNDING: None.