Complementing chronic frailty assessment at hospital admission with an electronic frailty index (FI-Laboratory) comprising routine blood test results.

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill and frail older adults have complex social and health care needs. It is important to understand how this complexity affects acute outcomes for admission to hospital. We validated a frailty index using routine admission laboratory tests with outcomes after patients were admitted to hospital. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of older adults admitted to a large tertiary hospital in the United Kingdom, we created a frailty index from routine admission laboratory investigations (FI-Laboratory) linked to data comprising hospital outcomes. We evaluated the association between the FI-Laboratory and total days spent in hospital, discharge to a higher level of care, readmission and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2552 admissions among 1750 older adults, we were able to generate FI-Laboratory values for 2254 admissions (88.3% of the cohort). More than half of admitted patients were women (55.3%) and the mean age was 84.6 (SD 14.0) years. We found that the FI-Laboratory correlated weakly with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; r 2 = 0.09). An increase in the CFS and the equivalent of 3 additional abnormal laboratory test results in the FI-Laboratory, respectively, were associated with an increased proportion of inpatient days (rate ratios [RRs] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.52; and 1.47, 95% CI 1.41-1.54), discharge to a higher level of care (odd ratios [ORs] 1.39, 95% CI 1.27-1.52; and 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.47) and increased readmission rate (hazard ratios [HRs] 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.37; and 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.26). Increases in the CFS and FI-Laboratory were associated with increased mortality HRs of 1.39 (95% CI 1.28-1.51) and 1.45 (95% CI 1.37-1.54), respectively. INTERPRETATION: We determined that FI-Laboratory, distinct from baseline frailty, could be used to predict risk of many adverse outcomes. The score is therefore a useful way to quantify the degree of acute illness in frail older adults.

Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, cost-benefit analysis and interrupted time-series interventions on pharmacist's prescribing.

Background: Shortening the process of prescribing via permitting the pharmacist to select the most appropriate pharmaceuticals for each particular patient may provide great opportunities for pharmacists to develop suitable pharmaceutical care plan, monitor and follow up prescribed medications, communicate and consult physicians for more confirmations. Objective: The objective of the current protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacists prescribing interventions was to explore, investigate the evidence, assess and compare PICO in patients with medical conditions (population), receiving pharmacist's prescribing care services (interventions) versus non-pharmacist's prescribing (comparators), and identify how it will impact the clinical, humanistic, and economic patient's outcomes (outcomes). Methods: The necessary elements of PRISMA will be strictly followed to report the systematic review. The meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Cochrane guidelines for synthesis of trials and all forms will be based on quality measures as per the validated Cochrane templates. We will present the results of the systematic review and the meta-analysis based on PICO comparison between the included trials. Results: We have identified four models of pharmacist prescribing interventions (independent, dependent [collaborative], supplementary, and emergency prescribing). The results will contain a systematic critical evaluation of the included trials in terms of the sample number of the population (characteristics), the type of interventions and the comparators, and the main outcome measures. Conclusion: This protocol will report the evidence and explore the magnitude of impact of pharmacist prescribing interventions, on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. .

Presenting features of COVID-19 in older people: relationships with frailty, inflammation and mortality.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical features of COVID-19 in older adults, and relate these to outcomes. METHODS: A cohort study of 217 individuals (median age 80, IQR 74-85 years; 62% men) hospitalised with COVID-19, followed up for all-cause mortality, was conducted. Secondary outcomes included cognitive and physical function at discharge. C-reactive protein and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio were used as measures of immune activity. RESULTS: Cardinal COVID-19 symptoms (fever, dyspnoea, cough) were common but not universal. Inflammation on hospitalisation was lower in frail older adults. Fever, dyspnoea, delirium and inflammation were associated with mortality. Delirium at presentation was an independent risk factor for cognitive decline at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 may present without cardinal symptoms as well as implicate a possible role for age-related changes in immunity in mediating the relationship between frailty and mortality.

Advance end-of-life healthcare planning in an acute NHS hospital setting; development and evaluation of the Expression of Healthcare Preferences (EHP) document.

OBJECTIVE: design and evaluate a document to enable older inpatients in an NHS hospital to discuss and record end-of-life healthcare preferences. DESIGN: user and professional collaboration to design the Expression of Healthcare Preferences (EHP). Prospective questionnaire survey and outcome evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: inpatients on wards for older adults in a London NHS Hospital Trust. RESULTS: the EHP consists of a form and explanatory booklet. 95 patients (mean age 81, median MMSE 28) received the EHP. 61 (64% (54-74%)) read the EHP and 29 (48% (35-61%)) of these recorded their healthcare preferences in the EHP form. The form prompted end-of-life care discussions between 43% (30-57%) of these patients and medical staff and between 52 (38-65) of these patients and "those close to them". The EHP was highly rated: on a score of 1 to 10 it was thought to be helpful (median score 8), interesting (8), informative (8) and reassuring (7) but not upsetting (1). CONCLUSION: the EHP is an end-of-life advance healthcare planning tool that we have shown can be used to prompt older inpatients to discuss and record their end-of-life healthcare preferences.

Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, cost-benefit analysis and interrupted timeseries interventions on pharmacist’s prescribing

Background: Shortening the process of prescribing via permitting the pharmacist to select the most appropriate pharmaceuticals for each particular patient may provide great opportunities for pharmacists to develop suitable pharmaceutical care plan, monitor and follow up prescribed medications, communicate and consult physicians for more confirmations. Objective: The objective of the current protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacists prescribing interventions was to explore, investigate the evidence, assess and compare PICO in patients with medical conditions (population), receiving pharmacist’s prescribing care services (interventions) versus non-pharmacist’s prescribing (comparators), and identify how it will impact the clinical, humanistic, and economic patient’s outcomes (outcomes). Methods: The necessary elements of PRISMA will be strictly followed to report the systematic review. The meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Cochrane guidelines for synthesis of trials and all forms will be based on quality measures as per the validated Cochrane templates. We will present the results of the systematic review and the meta-analysis based on PICO comparison between the included trials. Results: We have identified four models of pharmacist prescribing interventions (independent, dependent [collaborative], supplementary, and emergency prescribing). The results will contain a systematic critical evaluation of the included trials in terms of the sample number of the population (characteristics), the type of interventions and the comparators, and the main outcome measures. Conclusion: This protocol will report the evidence and explore the magnitude of impact of pharmacist prescribing interventions, on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. (AU)