OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of psychogeriatric intervention in a group of elderly medical inpatients over 75 years of age. In addition to usual care, intervention consisted of multidisciplinary joint treatment by a psychogeriatric team. The main purpose of intervention was to obtain the optimal level of physical functioning. METHOD: In a prospective randomized trial the effect of the intervention (N = 140) compared with usual care (N = 97) was estimated for physical functioning, length of stay, and nursing home placement within 12 months of discharge. RESULTS: Substantially more patients assigned to the intervention group improved in their physical functioning, and fewer became worse. The mean length of stay was 5 days shorter for the intervention group. There were more readmissions to hospital in the usual care group (29.9%) compared with the intervention group (17.4%). Of the patients assigned to the intervention treatment, 18% were admitted to a nursing home. In the usual care group this was 27%. The effects of intervention remained statistically significant for all the outcome variables after controlling for possible confounding baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention we studied had clinically relevant effects on important outcome variables. Psychiatric co-morbidity was an important risk factor for the outcome of the patients in our study. By combining elements from a psychiatric and geriatric consultation service with elements from a unit-driven service, we were able to improve health care for the elderly in our hospital in a feasible and cost-effective way.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of psychogeriatric intervention in a group of elderly medical inpatients over 75 years of age. In addition to usual care, intervention consisted of multidisciplinary joint treatment by a psychogeriatric team. The main purpose of intervention was to obtain the optimal level of physical functioning. METHOD: In a prospective randomized trial the effect of the intervention (N = 140) compared with usual care (N = 97) was estimated for physical functioning, length of stay, and nursing home placement within 12 months of discharge. RESULTS: Substantially more patients assigned to the intervention group improved in their physical functioning, and fewer became worse. The mean length of stay was 5 days shorter for the intervention group. There were more readmissions to hospital in the usual care group (29.9%) compared with the intervention group (17.4%). Of the patients assigned to the intervention treatment, 18% were admitted to a nursing home. In the usual care group this was 27%. The effects of intervention remained statistically significant for all the outcome variables after controlling for possible confounding baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention we studied had clinically relevant effects on important outcome variables. Psychiatric co-morbidity was an important risk factor for the outcome of the patients in our study. By combining elements from a psychiatric and geriatric consultation service with elements from a unit-driven service, we were able to improve health care for the elderly in our hospital in a feasible and cost-effective way.
Authors: Malaz A Boustani; Noll L Campbell; Babar A Khan; Greg Abernathy; Mohammed Zawahiri; Tiffany Campbell; Jason Tricker; Siu L Hui; John D Buckley; Anthony J Perkins; Mark O Farber; Christopher M Callahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nienke M Kosse; Alisa L Dutmer; Lena Dasenbrock; Jürgen M Bauer; Claudine J C Lamoth Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Sarah E Goldberg; Lucy E Bradshaw; Fiona C Kearney; Catherine Russell; Kathy H Whittamore; Pippa E R Foster; Jil Mamza; John R F Gladman; Rob G Jones; Sarah A Lewis; Davina Porock; Rowan H Harwood Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-07-02