BACKGROUND: many frail older people who attend acute hospital settings and who are discharged home within short periods (up to 72 h) have poor outcomes. This review assessed the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for such people. METHODS: standard bibliographic databases were searched for high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CGA in this setting. When appropriate, intervention effects were presented as rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: five trials of sufficient quality were included. There was no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in this population in terms of mortality [RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.55-1.52)] or readmissions [RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.83-1.08)] or for subsequent institutionalisation, functional ability, quality-of-life or cognition. CONCLUSIONS: there is no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in frail older people being discharged from emergency departments or acute medical units. However, few such trials have been carried out and their overall quality was poor. Further well designed trials are justified.
BACKGROUND: many frail older people who attend acute hospital settings and who are discharged home within short periods (up to 72 h) have poor outcomes. This review assessed the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for such people. METHODS: standard bibliographic databases were searched for high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CGA in this setting. When appropriate, intervention effects were presented as rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: five trials of sufficient quality were included. There was no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in this population in terms of mortality [RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.55-1.52)] or readmissions [RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.83-1.08)] or for subsequent institutionalisation, functional ability, quality-of-life or cognition. CONCLUSIONS: there is no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in frail older people being discharged from emergency departments or acute medical units. However, few such trials have been carried out and their overall quality was poor. Further well designed trials are justified.
Authors: Marie Boltz; Elizabeth Capezuti; Joseph Shuluk; Julianna Brouwer; Deirdre Carolan; Shirley Conway; Sue DeRosa; Rita LaReau; Denise Lyons; Sue Nickoley; Tyleen Smith; James E Galvin Journal: Nurs Health Sci Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 1.857
Authors: Alison Cooper; Adrian Edwards; Huw Williams; Huw P Evans; Anthony Avery; Peter Hibbert; Meredith Makeham; Aziz Sheikh; Liam J Donaldson; Andrew Carson-Stevens Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: M J R Aliberti; K E Covinsky; D Apolinario; S J Lee; S Q Fortes-Filho; J A Melo; S S C Viana; C K Suemoto; W Jacob-Filho Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Jaime M Hughes; Caroline E Freiermuth; Megan Shepherd-Banigan; Luna Ragsdale; Stephanie A Eucker; Karen Goldstein; S Nicole Hastings; Rachel L Rodriguez; Jessica Fulton; Katherine Ramos; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Adelaide M Gordon; Jennifer M Gierisch; Andrzej Kosinski; John W Williams Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: S Q Fortes-Filho; M J R Aliberti; D Apolinario; J A Melo-Fortes; M C Sitta; W Jacob-Filho; L E Garcez-Leme Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.075