European Collaborative and Interprofessional Capability Framework for Prevention and Management of Frailty-a consensus process supported by the Joint Action for Frailty Prevention (ADVANTAGE) and the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS).

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) is currently recommended for the delivery of high-quality integrated care for older people. Frailty prevention and management are key elements to be tackled on a multi-professional level. AIM: This study aims to develop a consensus-based European multi-professional capability framework for frailty prevention and management. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi technique, a consensus-based framework of knowledge, skills and attitudes for all professions involved in the care pathway of older people was developed within two consultation rounds. The template for the process was derived from competency frameworks collected in a comprehensive approach from EU-funded projects of the European Commission (EC) supported best practice models for health workforce development. RESULTS: The agreed framework consists of 25 items structured in 4 domains of capabilities. Content covers the understanding about frailty, skills for screening and assessment as well as management procedures for every profession involved. The majority of items focused on interprofessional collaboration, communication and person-centred care planning. DISCUSSION: This framework facilitates clarification of professionals' roles and standardizes procedures for cross-sectional care processes. Despite a lack of evidence for educational interventions, health workforce development remains an important aspect of quality assurance in health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-professional capability framework for frailty prevention and management incorporated interprofessional collaborative practice, consistent with current recommendations by the World Health Organization, Science Advice for Policy by European Academies and the European Commission.

A modified Delphi study to determine the level of consensus across the European Union on the structures, processes and desired outcomes of the management of polypharmacy in older people.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people. METHODS: Forty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ≥ 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3. RESULTS: Ninety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025. CONCLUSION: Consensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond.

[Geriatric assessment in physicians' practices: evolution and current application]. / Geriatrisches Assessment - Welche Tests eignen sich für die Hausarztpraxis?

There is substantial variation in the health of the older population. Primary care physicians are in demand of a quick overview of their patients' health in order to determine who is at risk of decline and dependency. A geriatric assessment aims to meet these requirements. Its intention is to facilitate care tailored to the individual needs. The following article gives an account of how geriatric assessment is currently applied in primary care. It provides evidence as to its effectiveness and critically discusses the use of standard instruments. Currently, easy to administer instruments are being tested in primary care for targeting frail older people and assessing their needs.

A geriatric assessment in general practice: prevalence, location, impact and doctor-patient perceptions of pain.

BACKGROUND: To investigate what a geriatric assessment in general practice adds towards previous findings of prevalence, location, impact and the dyadic doctor-patient perception of pain in this age group. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Consecutive patients aged 70 and over underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment in general practice that included a basic pain assessment (severity, sites and impact). Patients with pain and their doctors then independently rated its importance. Pain was correlated with further findings from the assessment, such as overall health, physical impairments, everyday function, falls, mood, health related lifestyle, social circumstances, using bivariate and multivariate statistics. Patient-doctor agreement on the importance of pain was calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: 219 out of 297 patients (73.7 %) reported pain at any location. Pain was generally located at multiple sites. It was most often present at the knee (33.9%), the lumbar spine (33.5%) as well as the hip (13.8%) and correlated with specific impairments such as restrictions of daily living (knee) or sleep problems (spine). Patients with pain and their physicians poorly agreed on the importance of the pain problem. CONCLUSIONS: A basic pain assessment can identify older patients with pain in general practice. It has resulted in a high prevalence exceeding that determined by encounters in consultations. It has been shown that a geriatric assessment provides an opportunity to address pain in a way that is adapted to older patients' needs - addressing all sites, its specific impact on life, and the patients' perceived importance of pain. Since there is little doctor-patient agreement, this seems a valuable strategy to optimize concrete treatment decisions and patient centered care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in the German Clinical Trial Register ( DRKS00000792 ).

[Patients' need for consultation after a geriatric assessment in family practice : Survey]. / Patientenseitiger Gesprächsbedarf nach einem geriatrischen Assessment in Hausarztpraxen : Survey.

BACKGROUND: During a doctor-patient consultation patients usually seek information by disclosing their reasons for requesting the encounter. Geriatric assessment allows a proactive examination of patients' overall health and function and provides an opportunity to broach issues beyond the initial purposes of the consultation. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed at investigating older patients' information seeking behavior following a geriatric assessment and the kind of topics they wished to discuss, taking a variety of patient and health-related factors into account. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 317 patients (≥ 70 years) underwent a geriatric assessment in 40 general practices. Subsequently they obtained a list of the problems uncovered and rated the relevance and information needs for each problem. Analyses consisted of determining the prevalence of information need for each health topic and identifying predictors in a mixed model (multilevel regression analysis). RESULTS: The 317 patients presented with a median of 11 health problems (interquartile range, IQR 8-14) and 80 % of the patients had information needs concerning only a few of the problems. High information needs were present for physical complaints and for vaccination issues. Little information seeking behavior was evident for unhealthy lifestyles, falls, limitations in daily activities and psychosocial problems. In the mixed model the personal relevance and the type of health problem both had a significant and independent effect on information seeking behavior. CONCLUSION: A geriatric assessment generates a moderate need for information. It provides physicians with an opportunity to focus on those health problems that are important to older patients but not usually addressed in normal consultations. This particularly applies to limitations in daily activities and psychosocial problems.

"It's MAGIC"--development of a manageable geriatric assessment for general practice use.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessments are established tools in institutional care since they enable standardized detection of relevant age-related disorders. Geriatric assessments could also be helpful in general practice. However, they are infrequently used in this setting, mainly due to their lengthy administration. The aim of the study was the development of a "manageable geriatric assessment--MAGIC", specially tailored to the requirements of daily primary care. METHODS: MAGIC was developed based on the comprehensive Standardized Assessment for Elderly People in Primary Care (STEP), using four different methodological approaches: We relied on A) the results of the PRISCUS study by assessing the prevalence of health problems uncovered by STEP, the importance of the respective problems rated by patients and general practitioners, as well as the treatment procedures initiated subsequently to the assessment. Moreover, we included findings of B) a literature analysis C) a review of the STEP assessment by experienced general practitioners and D) focus groups with general practitioners. RESULTS: The newly created MAGIC assessment consists of 9 items and covers typical geriatric health problems and syndromes: function, falls, incontinence, cognitive impairment, impaired ears and eyes, vaccine coverage, emotional instability and isolation. CONCLUSIONS: MAGIC promises to be a helpful screening instrument in primary care consultations involving elderly multimorbid patients. Applicable within a minimum of time it still covers health problems highly relevant with regard to a potential loss of autonomy. Feasibility will be tested in the context of a large, still ongoing randomized controlled trial on "reduction of potentially inadequate medication in elderly patients" (RIME study; DRKS-ID: DRKS00003610) in general practice.

Complex health care decisions with older patients in general practice: patient-centeredness and prioritization in consultations following a geriatric assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine to what extent general practitioners in consultations after a geriatric assessment set shared health priorities with older patients experiencing multimorbidity and to what extent this was facilitated through patient-centered behavior. METHODS: Observation of consultations embedded in a cluster randomized controlled trial,(1) in which 317 patients from 41 general practices received the STEP assessment followed by a care planning consultation with their GPs. GPs in the intervention group used a structured procedure for setting health (care) priorities in contrast to control GPs. A sample of 43 consultations (24 intervention; 19 control) were recorded, transcribed and analyzed with regard to priority setting and patient-centeredness. RESULTS: Patient-centeredness was only moderately apparent in consultations dealing with complex care plans for older patients with multimorbidity. The shared determination of health priorities seemed unusual for both doctors and patients and was rarely practiced, albeit more frequently in intervention consultations. CONCLUSION: Setting health care priorities with patients experiencing multimorbidity is ethically desirable and medically appropriate. Yet a short structured guide for doctors cannot easily achieve this. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More research is needed in regard to handling complex health needs of older patients. It requires a professional approach and training in patient-centered holistic care planning.

Impact of a priority-setting consultation on doctor-patient agreement after a geriatric assessment: cluster randomised controlled trial in German general practices.

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) often have to simultaneously tackle multiple health problems of older patients. A patient-centred process that engages the patient in setting health priorities for treatment is needed. We investigated whether a structured priority-setting consultation reconciles the often-differing doctor-patient views on the importance of problems. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial with 40 GPs and their 317 consecutively recruited older patients. PROCEDURE: Following a geriatric assessment, patients and doctors independently rated the importance of each uncovered problem. GPs then selected priorities with their patients in a consultation. Trained intervention GPs held a structured consultation and utilised the list of uncovered patient problems with their importance ratings to agree priorities. Untrained control GPs only used the patient's problem list without importance ratings. MAIN OUTCOME: Doctor-patient agreement on independent importance ratings two weeks after the priority-setting consultation. ANALYSIS: Weighted kappa (κw) and multilevel logistic regression model. RESULTS: Intervention GPs and their patients determined mutual priorities for 20% of individual problems. In this process, GPs often succeeded in convincing their patients of the importance of vaccinations, lifestyle and cognitive issues. Likewise, patients convinced their GPs to prioritise their social and functional problems. Further treatment plans ensued in 84% of these priority areas. The regression model adjusting for clusters and baseline characteristics did not demonstrate significant differences in doctor-patient agreement on problems between groups a two weeks later. CONCLUSION: Differing views on the importance of health problems between GPs and older patients were not sustainably reconciled. The special consultation facilitated identification of priority problems for treatment despite differences in perceived importance of problems between patients and GPs. German clinical trials register drks 00000792.

What is important, what needs treating? How GPs perceive older patients' multiple health problems: a mixed method research study.

BACKGROUND: GPs increasingly deal with multiple health problems of their older patients. They have to apply a hierarchical management approach that considers priorities to balance competing needs for treatment. Yet, the practice of setting individual priorities in older patients is largely unexplored. This paper analyses the GPs' perceptions on important and unimportant health problems and how these affect their treatment. METHODS: GPs appraised the importance of health problems for a purposive sample of their older patients in semi-structured interviews. Prior to the interviews, the GPs had received a list of their patients' health problems resulting from a geriatric assessment and were asked to rate the importance of each identified problem. In the interviews the GPs subsequently explained why they considered certain health problems important or not and how this affected treatment. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The problems GPs perceive as important are those that are medical and require active treatment or monitoring, or that induce empathy or awareness but cannot be assisted further. Unimportant problems are those that are well managed problems and need no further attention as well as age-related conditions or functional disabilities that provoke fatalism, or those considered outside the GPs' responsibility. Statements of professional actions are closely linked to explanations of important problems and relate to physical problems rather than functional and social patient issues. CONCLUSIONS: GPs tend to prioritise treatable clinical conditions. Treatment approaches are, however, vague or missing for complex chronic illnesses and disabilities. Here, patient empowerment strategies are of value and need to be developed and implemented. The professional concepts of ageing and disability should not impede but rather foster treatment and care. To this end, GPs need to be able to delegate care to a functioning primary care team. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Trial Register (DRKS): 00000792.

Priority setting in general practice: health priorities of older patients differ from treatment priorities of their physicians.

AIM: To ascertain health priorities of older patients and treatment priorities of their general practitioners (GP) on the basis of a geriatric assessment and to determine the agreement between these priorities. METHODS: The study included a sample of 9 general practitioners in Hannover, Germany, and a stratified sample of 35 patients (2-5 patients per practice, 18 female, average age 77.7 years). Patients were given a geriatric assessment using the Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in Primary Care (STEP) to gain an overview of their health and everyday problems. On the basis of these results, patients and their physicians independently rated the importance of each problem disclosed by the assessment. Whereas patients assessed the importance for their everyday lives, physicians assessed the importance for patients' medical care and patients' everyday lives. RESULTS: Each patient had a mean ± standard deviation of 18 ± 9.2 health problems. Thirty five patients disclosed a total of 634 problems; 537 (85%) were rated by patients and physicians. Of these 537 problems, 332 (62%) were rated by patients and 334 (62%) by physicians as important for patients' everyday lives. In addition, 294 (55%) were rated by physicians as important for patients' medical care. Although these proportions of important problems were similar between patients and physicians, there was little overlap in the specific problems that each group considered important. The chance-corrected agreement (Cohen κ) between patients and physicians on the importance of problems for patients' lives was low (κ=0.23). Likewise, patients and physicians disagreed on the problems that physicians considered important for patients' medical care (κ=0.18, P<0.001 for each). CONCLUSION: The low agreement on health and treatment priorities between patients and physicians necessitates better communication between the two parties to strengthen mutual understanding.

Disclosure of new health problems and intervention planning using a geriatric assessment in a primary care setting.

AIM: To determine the prevalence of health problems uncovered by a Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in a Primary Care Setting (STEP), to explore how often STEP uncovered conditions new to general practitioners (GP) and ascertain how often STEP results led GPs to plan further interventions. METHODS: This descriptive, interim analysis was based on the data of 189 elderly patients (median age, 78 years; interquartile range [IQ], 74-81) and their 20 GPs collected in Hannover region, Germany, between June 2008 and April 2009. Study nurses in the practice setting applied the 44-item STEP instrument, based mainly on self-reporting, as well as a standardized patient interview. Subsequently, GPs indicated whether the problems were new to them, and whether they planned further action or health interventions on the basis of the problems identified by STEP. RESULTS: A median of 11 health problems (IQ, 8-14) were uncovered per patient, of which a median of 2 (IQ, 1-4) were new to the GP and interventions were planned for a median of 2 problems (IQ, 0-4). Many of the identified health problems are typical of old age. The following health problems uncovered by STEP were often new to the GPs (percentages differ to numbers due to missing GP ratings): cognitive impairment (33 of 64 affected by this problem, 73%), missing or unknown immunization status (84 of 160, 55%), and recent chest pain (19 of 37, 53%). Alcohol misuse was new in all 4 affected patients (100%) and recent falls were new in 5 of 7 patients (83%). Interventions for affected patients were frequently planned for problems of immunization (for 83 patients of 160 reporting the problem, 57%), current anxiety (4 of 9, 50%), and chest pain (14 of 37, 44%). Moreover, further management was frequently planned for depression (10 of 29, 39%) and cognitive impairment (16 of 64, 38%). CONCLUSION: Using a geriatric assessment in primary care discloses relevant heath problems and treatment needs that GPs may otherwise overlook.