Examining the effect of interventions in emergency care for older people using a system dynamics decision support tool.

BACKGROUND: Rising demand for Emergency and Urgent Care is a major international issue and outcomes for older people remain sub-optimal. Embarking upon large-scale service development is costly in terms of time, energy and resources with no guarantee of improved outcomes; computer simulation modelling offers an alternative, low risk and lower cost approach to explore possible interventions. METHOD: A system dynamics computer simulation model was developed as a decision support tool for service planners. The model represents patient flow through the emergency care process from the point of calling for help through ED attendance, possible admission, and discharge or death. The model was validated against five different evidence-based interventions (geriatric emergency medicine, front door frailty, hospital at home, proactive care and acute frailty units) on patient outcomes such as hospital-related mortality, readmission and length of stay. RESULTS: The model output estimations are consistent with empirical evidence. Each intervention has different levels of effect on patient outcomes. Most of the interventions show potential reductions in hospital admissions, readmissions and hospital-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: System dynamics modelling can be used to support decisions on which emergency care interventions to implement to improve outcomes for older people.

The dynamics of frailty development and progression in older adults in primary care in England (2006-2017): a retrospective cohort profile.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a common condition in older adults and has a major impact on patient outcomes and service use. Information on the prevalence in middle-aged adults and the patterns of progression of frailty at an individual and population level is scarce. To address this, a cohort was defined from a large primary care database in England to describe the epidemiology of frailty and understand the dynamics of frailty within individuals and across the population. This article describes the structure of the dataset, cohort characteristics and planned analyses. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Participants were aged ≥50 years registered in practices contributing to the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre between 2006 to 2017. Data include GP practice details, patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, twice-yearly electronic Frailty Index (eFI), deaths, medication use and primary and secondary care health service use. Participants in each cohort year by age group, GP and patient characteristics at cohort entry are described. RESULTS: The cohort includes 2,177,656 patients, contributing 15,552,946 person-years, registered at 419 primary care practices in England. The mean age was 61 years, 52.1% of the cohort was female, and 77.6% lived in urban environments. Frailty increased with age, affecting 10% of adults aged 50-64 and 43.7% of adults aged ≥65. The prevalence of long-term conditions and specific frailty deficits increased with age, as did the eFI and the severity of frailty categories. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive understanding of frailty dynamics will inform predictions of current and future care needs to facilitate timely planning of appropriate interventions, service configurations and workforce requirements. Analysis of this large, nationally representative cohort including participants aged ≥50 will capture earlier transitions to frailty and enable a detailed understanding of progression and impact. These results will inform novel simulation models which predict future health and service needs of older people living with frailty. STUDY REGISTRATION: Registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov October 25th 2019, NCT04139278 .

ADCOMS sensitivity versus baseline diagnosis and progression phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: The Alzheimer's Disease COMposite Score (ADCOMS) is more sensitive in clinical trials than conventional measures when assessing pre-dementia. This study compares ADCOMS trajectories using clustered progression characteristics to better understand different patterns of decline. METHODS: Post-baseline ADCOMS values were analyzed for sensitivity using mean-to-standard deviation ratio (MSDR), partitioned by baseline diagnosis, comparing with the original scales upon which ADCOMS is based. Because baseline diagnosis was not a particularly reliable predictor of progression, individuals were also grouped into similar ADCOMS progression trajectories using clustering methods and the MSDR compared for each progression group. RESULTS: ADCOMS demonstrated increased sensitivity for clinically important progression groups. ADCOMS did not show statistically significant sensitivity or clinical relevance for the less-severe baseline diagnoses and marginal progression groups. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis complements and extends previous work validating the sensitivity of ADCOMS. The large data set permitted evaluation-in a novel approach-by the clustered progression group.