| Literature DB >> 33126470 |
Pritti Aggarwal1,2,3, Stephen J Woolford4, Harnish P Patel4,5,6.
Abstract
Multi-morbidity and polypharmacy are common in older people and pose a challenge for health and social care systems, especially in the context of global population ageing. They are complex and interrelated concepts in the care of older people that require early detection and patient-centred shared decision making underpinned by multi-disciplinary team-led comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) across all health and social care settings. Personalised care plans need to remain responsive and adaptable to the needs and wishes of the patient, enabling the individual to maintain their independence. In this review, we aim to give an up-to-date account of the recognition and management of multi-morbidity and polypharmacy in the older person.Entities:
Keywords: age-friendly care; comprehensive geriatric assessment; deprescribing; frailty; multi-morbidity; patient priority care; polypharmacy
Year: 2020 PMID: 33126470 PMCID: PMC7709573 DOI: 10.3390/geriatrics5040085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geriatrics (Basel) ISSN: 2308-3417
Figure 1Principles of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). CGA is an evidence-based multidimensional and interdisciplinary assessment of medical, psychological, and functional capabilities aimed at developing an integrated plan for treatment and care. CGA is associated with favourable clinical and health care outcomes. The core principles of CGA include comprehensive history taking and multidisciplinary led assessment, culminating in goals for current and future management. They encompass the 5 tenets of age-friendly care: 1. what matters most to the patient, 2. multi-complexity management, 3. medication management, 4. mentation, and 5. mobility. These principles can be applied across any health and social care setting and have been shown to be highly effective in the management of older people living with frailty and multi-morbidity. The process is iterative and the key to its success is timely review and coordination so that the care plan generated from a CGA remains responsive to the patient’s needs [24,46,66,69,70].
Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). We rated the content of this manuscript according to the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) [5]. The sum score was 10 out of a maximum of 12 points indicating a high-quality manuscript.
|
|
| ||
| The importance is not justified | 0 | ||
| The importance is alluded to, but not explicitly justified | 1 | ||
| The importance is explicitly justified | 2 | X | |
|
|
| ||
| No aims of questions are formulated | 0 | ||
| Aims are formulated generally but not concretely or in terms of clear questions | 1 | ||
| One or more concrete aims or questions are formulated | 2 | X | |
|
|
| ||
| The search strategy is not presented | 0 | ||
| The literature search is described briefly | 1 | X | |
| The literature search is described in detail, including search terms and inclusion criteria | 2 | ||
|
|
| ||
| Key statements are not supported by references | 0 | ||
| The referencing of key statements is inconsistent | 1 | ||
| Key statements are supported by references | 2 | X | |
|
|
| ||
| The article’s point is not based on appropriate arguments | 0 | ||
| Appropriate evidence is introduced selectively | 1 | ||
| Appropriate evidence is generally present | 2 | X | |
|
|
| ||
| Data are presented inadequately | 0 | ||
| Data are often presented in the most appropriate way | 1 | X | |
| Relevant outcome data are generally presented appropriately | 2 | ||
|
|
| ||
RCTs: Randomised Controlled Trials.