Frailty and Survival After In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Older adults face high mortality following resuscitation efforts for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Less is known about the role of frailty in survival to discharge after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether frailty, measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale, is associated with mortality after cardiopulmonary resuscitation following in-hospital cardiac arrest in older adults in the USA. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥ 65 years who had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation during an inpatient admission at two urban academic hospitals and three suburban community hospitals within a Boston area healthcare system from January 2018-January 2020. Patients with Clinical Frailty Scale scores 1-3 were considered not frail, 4-6 were considered very mildly, mildly, and moderately frail, respectively, and 7-9 were considered severely frail. MAIN MEASURES: In-hospital mortality after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. KEY RESULTS: Among 324 patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation following in-hospital cardiac arrest, 73.1% experienced in-hospital mortality. Patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 1-3 had 54% in-hospital mortality, which increased to 66%, 78%, 84%, and 84% for those with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 4, 5, 6, and 7-9, respectively (p = 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, higher frailty scores were significantly associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Compared to those with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 1-3, odds ratios (95% CI) for in-hospital mortality for patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 4, 5, 6, and 7-9 were 1.6 (0.8-3.3), 3.0 (1.3-7.1), 4.4 (1.9-9.9), and 4.6 (1.8-11.8), respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of frailty are associated with increased mortality after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation in older adults. Clinicians may consider using the Clinical Frailty Scale to help guide goals of care conversations, including discussion of code status, in this patient population.

Looking back, moving forward: A practical guide to implementing the updated ACGME geriatric medicine Milestones 2.0.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) developed the Milestones as a tool to aid trainee assessment based on the framework of the six core competencies of practice. Variability in the interpretation and application of the original Milestones prompted the ACGME to convene work groups within the different specialties and subspecialties to update the Milestones. The Geriatric Medicine work group was convened in 2019 with the goal of clarifying and simplifying the language of the Milestones, revising content to be specific to geriatrics, and developing supplemental resources to aid in implementation and use. We suggest using a practical, four-step process to implement the updated Milestones, called the Milestones 2.0, in fellowship programs by: (1) training faculty in the use of the Milestones 2.0, including an overview of the background and updates, (2) mapping the Milestones 2.0 to existing assessments, (3) educating fellows about the Milestones 2.0 and (4) presenting and discussing the Milestones 2.0 at Clinical Competency Committee meetings. This systematic approach promotes the development of a shared mental model for trainee assessments.

From research to bedside: Incorporation of a CGA-based frailty index among multiple comanagement services.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is the core tool used by geriatricians across diverse clinical settings to identify vulnerabilities and estimate physiologic reserve in older adults. In this paper, we demonstrate the iterative process at our institution to identify and develop a feasible, acceptable, and sustainable bedside CGA-based frailty index tool (FI-CGA) that not only quantifies and grades frailty but also provides a uniform way to efficiently communicate complex geriatric concepts such as reserve and vulnerability with other teams. We describe our incorporation of the FI-CGA into the electronic health record (EHR) and dissemination among clinical services. We demonstrate that an increasing number of patients have documented FI-CGA in their initial assessment from 2018 to 2020, while additional comanagement services were established (Figure 2). The acceptability and sustainability of the FI-CGA, and its routine use by geriatricians in our division, were demonstrated by a survey where the majority of clinicians report using the FI-CGA when assessing a new patient and that the FI-CGA informs their clinical management. Finally, we demonstrate how we refined and updated the FI-CGA, we provide examples of applications of the FI-CGA across the institution and describe areas of ongoing process improvement and challenges for the use of this tailored yet standardized tool across diverse inpatient and outpatient services. The process outlined can be used by other geriatric departments to introduce and incorporate an FI-CGA.

Discrepancy Between Patient Health Literacy Levels and Readability of Patient Education Materials from an Electronic Health Record.

Limited health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes. It is standard practice in many primary care clinics to provide patients with written patient education materials (PEM), which often come directly from an electronic health record (EHR). We compared the health literacy of patients in a primary care residency clinic with EHR PEM readability by grade level. We assessed health literacy using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form (REALM-SF), and determined grade level readability for the PEM distributed for the five most common clinical diagnoses using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid metrics. Among 175 participants, health literacy was ≥9th grade for 76 patients (43.4%), 7th to 8th grade for 66 patients (37.7%), and ≤6th grade for 30 patients (17.1%). Average standard PEM readability by SMOG was grade 9.2 and easy-to-read PEM readability was grade 6.8. These findings suggest a discrepancy between the health literacy of most patients who were surveyed and standard PEM readability. Despite national guidelines encouraging clinicians to provide PEM at an appropriate reading level, our results indicate that PEM from EHR may not be readable for many patients. [Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2017;1(4):e203-e207.].