OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the first-generation Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the third-generation interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). DESIGN: Based on a qualitative multiphase exchange of expert opinion, published evidence was critically analyzed and translated into a consensus. RESULTS: Both methods are intended for a multi-domain geriatric assessment in acute hospital settings, but each with a different scope and goal. MGST contains a collection of single-domain, internationally validated instruments. Assessment is usually triggered by care givers' clinical impression based on geriatric expertise. A limited selection of domains is usually assessed only once, by disciplines with domain-specific expertise. Clinical use results in improvement to screen geriatric problems. InterRAI AC, tailored for acute settings, intends to screen a large number of geriatric domains. Based on systematic observational data, risk domains are triggered and clinical guidelines are suggested. Multiple observation periods outline the evolution of patients' functioning over stay in comparison to the premorbid situation. The method is appropriate for application on geriatric and non-geriatric wards, filling geriatric knowledge gaps. The interRAI Suite contains a common set of standardized items across settings, facilitating data transfer in transitional care. CONCLUSION: The third-generation interRAI AC has advantages compared to the first-generation MGST. A cascade system is proposed to integrate both, complementary methods in practice. The systematic interRAI AC assessment detects risk domains. Subsequently, clinical protocols suggest components of the MGST as additional assessment. This cascade approach unites the strength of exhaustive assessment of the interRAI AC with domain-specific tools of the MGST.
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the first-generation Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the third-generation interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). DESIGN: Based on a qualitative multiphase exchange of expert opinion, published evidence was critically analyzed and translated into a consensus. RESULTS: Both methods are intended for a multi-domain geriatric assessment in acute hospital settings, but each with a different scope and goal. MGST contains a collection of single-domain, internationally validated instruments. Assessment is usually triggered by care givers' clinical impression based on geriatric expertise. A limited selection of domains is usually assessed only once, by disciplines with domain-specific expertise. Clinical use results in improvement to screen geriatric problems. InterRAI AC, tailored for acute settings, intends to screen a large number of geriatric domains. Based on systematic observational data, risk domains are triggered and clinical guidelines are suggested. Multiple observation periods outline the evolution of patients' functioning over stay in comparison to the premorbid situation. The method is appropriate for application on geriatric and non-geriatric wards, filling geriatric knowledge gaps. The interRAI Suite contains a common set of standardized items across settings, facilitating data transfer in transitional care. CONCLUSION: The third-generation interRAI AC has advantages compared to the first-generation MGST. A cascade system is proposed to integrate both, complementary methods in practice. The systematic interRAI AC assessment detects risk domains. Subsequently, clinical protocols suggest components of the MGST as additional assessment. This cascade approach unites the strength of exhaustive assessment of the interRAI AC with domain-specific tools of the MGST.
Authors: G Abellan Van Kan; A Sinclair; S Andrieu; M Olde Rikkert; G Gambassi; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Len C Gray; Roberto Bernabei; Katherine Berg; Harriet Finne-Soveri; Brant E Fries; John P Hirdes; Pálmi V Jónsson; John N Morris; Knight Steel; Sergio Ariño-Blasco Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Leonard C Gray; Katherine Berg; Brant E Fries; Jean-Claude Henrard; John P Hirdes; Knight Steel; John N Morris Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: C Kenis; P Heeren; L Decoster; K Van Puyvelde; G Conings; F Cornelis; P Cornette; R Moor; S Luce; Y Libert; R Van Rijswijk; G Jerusalem; M Rasschaert; C Langenaeken; A Baitar; P Specenier; K Geboers; K Vandenborre; P R Debruyne; K Vanoverbeke; H Van den Bulck; J-P Praet; C Focan; V Verschaeve; N Nols; J-C Goeminne; B Petit; J-P Lobelle; J Flamaing; K Milisen; H Wildiers Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ruth E Hubbard; Nancye M Peel; Mayukh Samanta; Leonard C Gray; Brant E Fries; Arnold Mitnitski; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Els Devriendt; Nathalie I H Wellens; Johan Flamaing; Anja Declercq; Philip Moons; Steven Boonen; Koen Milisen Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Rosie Burn; Ruth E Hubbard; Richard J Scrase; Rebecca K Abey-Nesbit; Nancye M Peel; Philip J Schluter; Hamish A Jamieson Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Matthew S Leyenaar; Ryan P Strum; Alan M Batt; Samir Sinha; Michael Nolan; Gina Agarwal; Walter Tavares; Andrew P Costa Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nathalie I H Wellens; Johan Flamaing; Philip Moons; Mieke Deschodt; Steven Boonen; Koen Milisen Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 3.921