The Aging Care 5Ms Competencies: A Modified Delphi Study to Revise Medical Student Competencies for the Care of Older Adults.

PURPOSE: To revise the 2009 Canadian Geriatrics Society (CGS) Core Competencies in the Care of Older Persons for Canadian Medical Students by applying current frameworks and using a modified Delphi process. METHOD: The working group chose the Geriatric 5Ms model and CanMEDS framework to develop and structure the competencies. National (i.e., Canadian) Delphi participants were recruited, and 3 Delphi survey rounds were conducted from 2019 to 2021. Each survey round collected quantitative data using a 7-point Likert scale (LS) and qualitative data using free-text comments. The purpose of the first round was to establish the importance of the components of the proposed competencies (categorized into 13 subsections) and identify additional themes. The second round assessed agreement with 31 proposed competencies organized into 7 themes: aging, caring for older adults, mind, mobility, medications, multicomplexity, and matters the most. The third survey-rated agreement levels after further revisions to the competencies were applied. The final 33 competencies were shared with survey participants for feedback and other stakeholders for external validation. RESULTS: Mean LSs for the importance of the 13 competency component subsections on the first survey varied from 5.11 to 6.54, with an agreement level of 73%-93%. New themes emerged from the qualitative comments. Mean LSs for the 31 competencies on the second survey ranged from 5.57 to 6.81, with an agreement level of 80%-97%. Mean LSs for the revised competencies on the third survey ranged from 5.83 to 6.65, with an agreement level of 83%-95%. CONCLUSIONS: The authors developed the 33 Aging Care 5Ms Competencies for Canadian medical students using a consensus process. The competencies fulfill an important need in medical education, and ultimately, society. The authors strongly believe that the competencies can be woven into existing undergraduate medical curricula through purposeful integration and collaboration, including with other specialties.

Reducing Sedative-Hypnotics Among Hospitalized Patients: a Multi-centered Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedative-hypnotics are frequently prescribed for insomnia in hospital but are associated with preventable harms. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to examine whether a sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle decreases the rate of sedative-hypnotic use among hospitalized patients, who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. This interrupted time series study occurred between May 2016 and January 2019. Control data for 1 year prior to implementation and intervention data for at least 16 months were collected. The study occurred on 7 inpatient wards (general medicine, cardiology, nephrology, general surgery, and cardiovascular surgery wards) across 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. INTERVENTION: Participating wards implemented a sedative-hypnotic reduction bundle (i.e., order set changes, audit-feedback, pharmacist-enabled medication reviews, sleep hygiene, daily sleep huddles, and staff/patient/family education) aimed to reduce in-hospital sedative-hypnotic initiation for insomnia in patients who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. Each inpatient ward adapted the bundle prior to sustaining the intervention for a minimum of 16 months. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sedative-hypnotic-naïve inpatients newly prescribed a sedative-hypnotic for sleep in hospital. Secondary measures include prescribing rates of other sedating medications, fall rates, length of stay, and mortality. KEY RESULTS: We included 8,970 patient discharges in the control period and 10,120 in the intervention period. Adjusted sedative-hypnotic prescriptions among naïve patients decreased from 15.48% (95% CI: 6.09-19.42) to 9.08% (p<0.001) (adjusted OR 0.814; 95% CI: 0.667-0.993, p=0.042). Unchanged secondary outcomes included mortality (adjusted OR 1.089; 95% CI: 0.786-1.508, p=0.608), falls (adjusted rate ratio 0.819; 95% CI: 0.625-1.073, p=0.148), or other sedating drug prescriptions (adjusted OR 1.046; 95% CI: 0.873-1.252, p=0.627). CONCLUSIONS: A sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle implemented across 5 hospitals was associated with a sustained reduction in sedative-hypnotic prescriptions.

A Pragmatic Non-Randomized Trial of Prehabilitation Prior to Cancer Surgery: Study Protocol and COVID-19-Related Adaptations.

BACKGROUND: Experimental data highlight the potential benefits and health system cost savings related to surgical prehabilitation; however, adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) data remain nascent. Emerging prehabilitation services may be informed by early RCT data but can be limited in informing real-world program development. Pragmatic trials emphasize external validity and generalizability to understand and advise intervention development and implementation in clinical settings. This paper presents the methodology of a pragmatic prehabilitation trial to complement emerging phase III clinical trials and inform implementation strategies. METHODS: This is a pilot pragmatic clinical trial conducted in a large academic hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada to assess feasibility of clinical implementation and derive estimates of effectiveness. Feasibility data include program referral rates, enrolment and attrition, intervention adherence and safety, participant satisfaction, and barriers and facilitators to programming. The study aims to receive 150 eligible referrals for adult, English-speaking, preoperative oncology patients with an identified indication for prehabilitation (e.g., frailty, deconditioning, malnutrition, psychological distress). Study participants undergo a baseline assessment and shared-decision making regarding the intervention setting: either facility-based prehabilitation or home-based prehabilitation. In both scenarios, participants receive an individualized exercise prescription, stress-reduction psychological support, nutrition counseling, and protein supplementation, and if appropriate, smoking cessation program referrals. Secondary objectives include estimating intervention effects at the week prior to surgery and 30 and 90 days postoperatively. Outcomes include surgical complications, postoperative length of stay, mortality, hospital readmissions, physical fitness, psychological well-being, and quality of life. Data from participants who decline the intervention but consent for research-related access to health records will serve as comparators. The COVID-19 pandemic required the introduction of a 'virtual program' using only telephone or internet-based communication for screening, assessments, or intervention was introduced. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic trial will provide evidence on the feasibility and viability of prehabilitation services delivered under usual clinical conditions. Study amendments due to the COVID-19 pandemic are presented as strategies to maintain prehabilitation research and services to potentially mitigate the consequences of extended surgery wait times.