Anne W Ekdahl1, Jenny Alwin2, Jeanette Eckerblad3, Magnus Husberg2, Tiny Jaarsma3, Amelie Lindh Mazya4, Anna Milberg5, Barbro Krevers2, Mitra Unosson3, Rolf Wiklund6, Per Carlsson2. 1. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Research and Education, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Skåne Region, Sweden. Electronic address: anneekdahl@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Division of Health Care Analysis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 3. Department of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden. 4. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden; Department of Advanced Home Care and Department of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden. 6. Department of Analysis of Health Care, Östergötland Region, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of care based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as a complement to usual care in an outpatient setting with those of usual care alone. The assessment was performed 36 months after study inclusion. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, single-center trial. SETTING:A geriatric ambulatory unit in a municipality in the southeast of Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 75 years who had received inpatient hospital care 3 or more times in the past 12 months and had 3 or more concomitant medical diagnoses were eligible for study inclusion. Participants were randomized to the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). INTERVENTION: Participants in the IG received CGA-based care for 24 to 31 months at the geriatric ambulatory unit in addition to usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, transfer to nursing home, days in hospital, and total costs of health and social care after 36 months. RESULTS:Mean age (SD) of participants was 82.5 (4.9) years. Participants in the IG (n = 208) lived 69 days longer than did those in the CG (n = 174); 27.9% (n = 58) of participants in the IG and 38.5% (n = 67) in the CG died (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.12, P = .026). The mean number of inpatient days was lower in the IG (15.1 [SD 18.4]) than in the CG (21.0 [SD 25.0], P = .01). Mean overall costs during the 36-month period did not differ between the IG and CG (USD 71,905 [SD 85,560] and USD 65,626 [SD 66,338], P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: CGA-based care resulted in longer survival and fewer days in hospital, without significantly higher cost, at 3 years after baseline. These findings add to the evidence of CGA's superiority over usual care in outpatient settings. As CGA-based care leads to important positive outcomes, this method should be used more extensively in the treatment of older people to meet their needs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of care based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as a complement to usual care in an outpatient setting with those of usual care alone. The assessment was performed 36 months after study inclusion. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, single-center trial. SETTING: A geriatric ambulatory unit in a municipality in the southeast of Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 75 years who had received inpatient hospital care 3 or more times in the past 12 months and had 3 or more concomitant medical diagnoses were eligible for study inclusion. Participants were randomized to the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). INTERVENTION: Participants in the IG received CGA-based care for 24 to 31 months at the geriatric ambulatory unit in addition to usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, transfer to nursing home, days in hospital, and total costs of health and social care after 36 months. RESULTS: Mean age (SD) of participants was 82.5 (4.9) years. Participants in the IG (n = 208) lived 69 days longer than did those in the CG (n = 174); 27.9% (n = 58) of participants in the IG and 38.5% (n = 67) in the CG died (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.12, P = .026). The mean number of inpatient days was lower in the IG (15.1 [SD 18.4]) than in the CG (21.0 [SD 25.0], P = .01). Mean overall costs during the 36-month period did not differ between the IG and CG (USD 71,905 [SD 85,560] and USD 65,626 [SD 66,338], P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: CGA-based care resulted in longer survival and fewer days in hospital, without significantly higher cost, at 3 years after baseline. These findings add to the evidence of CGA's superiority over usual care in outpatient settings. As CGA-based care leads to important positive outcomes, this method should be used more extensively in the treatment of older people to meet their needs.
Authors: Rupen Shah; Jeffrey D Borrebach; Jacob C Hodges; Patrick R Varley; Mary Kay Wisniewski; Myrick C Shinall; Shipra Arya; Jonas Johnson; Joel B Nelson; Ada Youk; Nader N Massarweh; Jason M Johanning; Daniel E Hall Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; William Dale; Mark R Somerfield; Mara A Schonberg; Cynthia M Boyd; Peggy S Burhenn; Beverly Canin; Harvey Jay Cohen; Holly M Holmes; Judith O Hopkins; Michelle C Janelsins; Alok A Khorana; Heidi D Klepin; Stuart M Lichtman; Karen M Mustian; William P Tew; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert Briggs; Anna McDonough; Graham Ellis; Kathleen Bennett; Desmond O'Neill; David Robinson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Brian Chan; Samuel T Edwards; Meg Devoe; Richard Gil; Matthew Mitchell; Honora Englander; Christina Nicolaidis; Devan Kansagara; Somnath Saha; P Todd Korthuis Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: Martina Lundqvist; Jenny Alwin; Martin Henriksson; Magnus Husberg; Per Carlsson; Anne W Ekdahl Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.921