The Importance of Taking a Patient-Centered, Community-Based Approach to Preventing and Managing Frailty: A Public Health Perspective.

Across the world, life expectancy is increasing. However, the years of life gained do not always correspond to healthy life years, potentially leading to an increase in frailty. Given the extent of population aging, the association between frailty and age and the impact of frailty on adverse outcomes for older people, frailty is increasingly being recognized to be a significant public health concern. Early identification of the condition is important to help older adults regain function and to prevent the negative outcomes associated with the syndrome. Despite the importance of diagnosing frailty, there is no definitive evidence or consensus of whether screening should be routinely implemented. A broad range of screening and assessment instruments have been developed taking a biopsychosocial approach, characterizing frailty as a dynamic state resulting from deficits in any of the physical, psychological and social domains, which contribute to health. All these aspects of frailty should be identified and addressed using an integrated and holistic approach to care. To achieve this goal, public health and primary health care (PHC) need to become the fulcrum through which care is offered, not only to older people and those that are frail, but to all individuals, favoring a life-course and patient-centered approach centered around integrated, community-based care. Public health personnel should be trained to address frailty not merely from a clinical perspective, but also in a societal context. Interventions should be delivered in the individuals' environment and within their social networks. Furthermore, public health professionals should contribute to education and training on frailty at a community level, fostering community-based interventions to support older adults and their caregivers to prevent and manage frailty. The purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of the concept of frailty for a public health audience in order to raise awareness of the multidimensional aspects of frailty and on how these should be addressed using an integrated and holistic approach to care.

The Impact of and Interaction between Diabetes and Frailty on Psychosocial Wellbeing and Mortality in Ireland.

Frailty in middle-aged and older adults is associated with diabetes-related complications. The impact of and interaction between diabetes and frailty on psychosocial wellbeing and mortality in Ireland for adults aged ≥50 years were assessed using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Measures included diabetes status (self-reported), frailty phenotype (≥3/5 criteria), low self-rated health ("fair" or "poor"), depression screening (EURO-D index score ≥4), and low quality of life (QoL) (CASP-12 index score < 35). Among the 970 participants, those with diabetes (n = 87) were more likely to be frail (23% vs. 8%; p < 0.001), have low self-rated health (46% vs. 19%; p < 0.001), depression (25% vs. 17%; p = 0.070), and low QoL (25% vs. 18%, p = 0.085). Adjusting for diabetes, age and sex, frailty independently predicted low self-rated health (OR: 9.79 (5.85-16.36)), depression (9.82 (5.93-16.25)), and low QoL (8.52 (5.19-13.97)). Adjusting for frailty, age and sex, diabetes independently predicted low self-rated health (2.70 (1.63-4.47)). The age-sex adjusted mortality hazard ratio was highest for frailty with diabetes (4.67 (1.08-20.15)), followed by frailty without diabetes (2.86 (1.17-6.99)) and being non-frail with diabetes (1.76 (0.59-5.22)). Frailty independently predicts lower self-reported wellbeing and is associated with reduced survival, underpinning its role as an integral part of holistic diabetes care.

Defining the characteristics of intermediate care models including transitional care: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Although there is growing utilisation of intermediate care to improve the health and well-being of older adults with complex care needs, there is no international agreement on how it is defined, limiting comparability between studies and reducing the ability to scale effective interventions. AIM: To identify and define the characteristics of intermediate care models. METHODS: A scoping review, a modified two-round electronic Delphi study involving 27 multi-professional experts from 13 countries, and a virtual consensus meeting were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-six records were included in the scoping review, which identified four main themes: transitions, components, benefits and interchangeability. These formed the basis of the first round of the Delphi survey. After Round 2, 16 statements were agreed, refined and collapsed further. Consensus was established for 10 statements addressing the definitions, purpose, target populations, approach to care and organisation of intermediate care models. DISCUSSION: There was agreement that intermediate care represents time-limited services which ensure continuity and quality of care, promote recovery, restore independence and confidence at the interface between home and acute services, with transitional care representing a subset of intermediate care. Models are best delivered by an interdisciplinary team within an integrated health and social care system where a single contact point optimises service access, communication and coordination. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key defining features of intermediate care to improve understanding and to support comparisons between models and studies evaluating them. More research is required to develop operational definitions for use in different healthcare systems.

Non-pharmacological treatments for sleep disturbance in mild cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

No disease-modifying treatments for dementia are available. Sleep disturbance is strongly associated with cognitive impairment. Non-pharmacological treatments targeting sleep may offer an alternative therapeutic approach. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for non-pharmacological treatments for sleep disturbance in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, published in English from October 1965 to 2018, including all designs, excluding studies of drug therapies. In all, 53 papers representing 48 studies were included. Participant age ranged from 67.3 to 89.4 years. Most studies (79%) had small samples (<50 participants, range 1-173) and were conducted in long-term/residential care (62%). The majority (85%) recruited participants with moderate-severe dementia; mean MMSE scores ranged from 0 to 28.3/30. Four studies examined MCI. Light therapy delivered over 1-10 weeks was the most studied stand-alone intervention (n = 27), and the majority (81.5%) of these studies found improvements on objective or subjective sleep measures, though the evidence was inconclusive with significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Seven multi-modal intervention studies were identified, all incorporating light exposure, and six of these reported improved sleep. Other interventions included electrotherapy stimulation (n = 4), physical exercises/activities (n = 4), acupressure/acupuncture (n = 3) and mindfulness/cognitive behavioural therapy (n = 3). Those examining MCI utilised different mono-modal approaches. A meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials showed a statistically significant (mean difference = 3.44, 95% CI: 0.89-5.99, I2=0%; p = 0.008) improvement in sleep efficiency between interventions and controls, favouring the pooled interventions (bright light, multi-domain and other therapies). No other significant differences in sleep or non-sleep outcomes were found. While evidence is available for non-pharmacological sleep interventions, particularly multi-domain approaches, studies were diverse and had small samples. More research examining multi-modal interventions, community-dwellers and those with MCI is required.