Evaluation and establishment of a ward-based geriatric liaison service for older urological surgical patients: Proactive care of Older People undergoing Surgery (POPS)-Urology.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of introducing and embedding a structured geriatric liaison service, Proactive care of Older People undergoing Surgery (POPS)-Urology, using comprehensive geriatric assessment methodology, on an inpatient urology ward. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phased quality improvement project was undertaken using stepwise interventions. Phase 1 was a before-and-after study with initiation of a daily board round, weekly multidisciplinary meeting, and targeted geriatrician-led ward rounds for elective and emergency urology patients aged ≥65 years admitted over two 1-month periods. Outcomes were recorded from medical records and discharge documentation, including length of inpatient stay, medical and surgical complications, and 30-day readmission and mortality rates. Phase 2 was a quality improvement project involving Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and qualitative staff surveys in order to create a Geriatric Surgical Checklist (GSCL) to standardize the intervention in Phase 1, improve equity of care by extending it to all ages, improve team-working and streamline handovers for multidisciplinary staff. RESULTS: Phase 1 included 112 patients in the control month and 130 in the intervention month. The length of inpatient stay was reduced by 19% (mean 4.9 vs 4.0 days; P = 0.01), total postoperative complications were lower (risk ratio 0.24 [95% confidence interval 0.10, 0.54]; P = 0.001). A non-significant trend was seen towards fewer cancellations of surgery (10 vs 5%; P = 0.12) and 30-day readmissions (8 vs 3%; P = 0.07). In Phase 2, the GSCL was created and incrementally improved. Questionnaires repeated at intervals showed that the GSCL helped staff to understand their role better in multidisciplinary meetings, improved their confidence to raise issues, reduced duplication of handovers and standardized identification of geriatric issues. Equity of care was improved by providing the intervention to patients of all ages, despite which the time taken for the daily board round did not lengthen. CONCLUSION: This is the first known paper describing the benefits of daily proactive geriatric intervention in elective and emergency urological surgery. The results suggest that using a multidisciplinary team board round helps to facilitate collaborative working between surgical and geriatric medicine teams. The GSCL enables systematic identification of patients who require a focused comprehensive geriatric assessment. There is potential to transfer the GSCL package to other surgical specialties and hospitals to improve postoperative outcomes

The impact of low grade toxicity in older people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Significant toxicity in chemotherapy trials is usually defined as grade ⩾3. In clinical practice, however, multiple lower grade toxicities are often considered meaningful. The purpose of this observational cohort study was to identify which level of toxicity triggers treatment modification and early discontinuation of chemotherapy in older people. METHODS: Patients aged 65+ were recruited in a central London hospital. A total of 108 patients were recruited at the start of new chemotherapy treatment between October 2010 and July 2012. RESULTS: Mean age was 72.1±5 years, median 72 and range 65–86 years. Of the patients, 50.9% (55) were male with gastrointestinal (49), gynaecological (18), lung (15) and other cancers (26). Chemotherapy was palliative in 59.3% (64/108), curative/ neoadjuvant/adjuvant in the others. Mean number of cycles completed was 4.2±3. Treatment modifications due to toxicity occurred in 60 (55.6%) patients, 35% (21/60) of whom had no greater than grade 2 toxicity. Early treatment discontinuation because of toxicity occurred in 23 patients (21.3%), 39.1% (9/23) of whom had no greater than grade 2 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Many older patients did not complete treatment as planned. Treatment was modified/discontinued even for one or two low-grade toxicities. Further work is required to clarify whether low-grade toxicity has a greater clinical impact in older people, or whether clinicians have a lower threshold for modifying/discontinuing treatment in older people