Barbara C. van Munster

Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions. A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively. The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation. This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults’ knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.

Clinical care for older adults is complex and represents a growing problem. They are a diverse patient group with varying needs, frequent presence of multiple comorbidities, and are more susceptible to treatment harms. Thus Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) need to carefully consider older adults in order to guide clinicians. We reviewed CPG recommendations for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and examined the extent to which CPGs address issues important for older people identified in the literature. We searched: 1) two systematic reviews on CPGs for CVD prevention and 2) the National CPG Clearinghouse, G-I-N International CPG Library and Trip databases for CPGs for CVD prevention, hypertension and cholesterol. We conducted our search between April and December 2013. We excluded CPGs for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, HIV, lifestyle, general screening/prevention, and pregnant or pediatric populations. Three authors independently screened citations for inclusion and extracted data. The primary outcomes were presence and extent of recommendations for older people including discussion of: (1) available evidence, (2) barriers to implementation of the CPG, and (3) tailoring management for this group. We found 47 eligible CPGs. There was no mention of older people in 4 (9 %) of the CPGs. Benefits were discussed more frequently than harms. Twenty-three CPGs (49 %) discussed evidence about potential benefits and 18 (38 %) discussed potential harms of CVD prevention in older people. Most CPGs addressed one or more barriers to implementation, often as a short statement. Although 27 CPGs (58 %) mentioned tailoring management to the older patient context (e.g. comorbidities), concrete guidance was rare. Although most CVD prevention CPGs mention the older population to some extent, the information provided is vague and very limited. Older adults represent a growing proportion of the population. Guideline developers must ensure they consider older patients’ needs and provide appropriate advice to clinicians in order to support high quality care for this group. CPGs should at a minimum address the available evidence about CVD prevention for older people, and acknowledge the importance of patient involvement.

To determine the predictive value of safety management system (VMS) screening questions for falling, delirium, and mortality, as punt down in the VMS theme 'Frail elderly'. Retrospective observational study. We selected all patients ≥ 70 years who were admitted to non-ICU wards at the Deventer Hospital, the Netherlands, for at least 24 hours between 28 March 2011 and 10 June 2011. On admission, patients were screened with the VMS instrument by a researcher. Delirium and falls were recorded during hospitalisation. Six months after hospitalisation, data on mortality were collected. We included 688 patients with a median age of 78.7 (range: 70.0-97.1); 50.7% was male. The sensitivity of the screening for delirium risk was 82%, the specificity 62%. The sensitivity of the screening for risk of falling was 63%, the specificity 65%. Independent predictors for mortality within 6 months were delirium risk (odds ratio (OR): 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-3.2), malnutrition (OR: 2.1; 95% CI 1.3-3.5), admission to a non-surgical ward (OR: 3.0; 95% CI 1.8-5.1), and older age (OR: 1.1; 95%CI 1.0-1.1). Patients classified by the VMS theme 'Frail elderly' as having more risk factors had a higher risk of dying (p < 0.001). The VMS screening for delirium is a reasonably reliable instrument for identifying those elderly people with a high risk of developing this condition; the VMS sensitivity for fall risk is moderate. The number of positive VMS risk factors correlates with mortality and may therefore be regarded as a measure of frailty.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. `Strict’ and `relaxed’ DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more `relaxed’ approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.

A multidisciplinary workgroup has revised the 2004 practice guidelines on 'Delirium' on the initiative of the Dutch Geriatrics Society. In comparison with the previous version, the new guidelines place more emphasis on screening and non-pharmaceutical prevention and treatment. They recommend a degree of restraint when prescribing medication. Both the patient's and the caregiver's perspectives are discussed. The guidelines also focus on delirium in patients in a nursing home setting, and describe what the workgroup regards as optimal care for patients suffering from delirium. The revised guidelines consider the diagnosis and treatment of delirium as a part of basic medical care and primarily the responsibility of the attending physician. The workgroup advises consulting an expert in the field of delirium only in cases of lack of experience, and for complex cases. The guidelines also include recommendations for the organization of follow-up care for the delirium patient.

Elderly dialysis patients are prone to disabilities and functional decline. This aggravates their last period of life. It would be valuable to be able to preserve daily function and quality of life. Identification of domains requiring additional attention is not common practice in standard care. Therefore, we performed a systematic Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) to assess physical and psychosocial function and tested its feasibility in daily practice. The CGA is used more frequently in the assessment of elderly cancer patients, and we therefore compared the outcomes to this group.