The quality of communication about older patients between hospital physicians and general practitioners: a panel study assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Optimal care of patients is dependent on good professional interaction between general practitioners and general hospital physicians. In Norway this is mainly based upon referral and discharge letters. The main objectives of this study were to assess the quality of the written communication between physicians and to estimate the number of patients that could have been treated at primary care level instead of at a general hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study comprised referral and discharge letters for 100 patients above 75 years of age admitted to orthopaedic, pulmonary and cardiological departments at the city general hospital in Trondheim, Norway. The assessments were done using a Delphi technique with two expert panels, each with one general hospital specialist, one general practitioner and one public health nurse using a standardised evaluation protocol with a visual analogue scale (VAS). The panels assessed the quality of the description of the patient's actual medical condition, former medical history, signs, medication, Activity of Daily Living (ADL), social network, need of home care and the benefit of general hospital care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While information in the referral letters on actual medical situation, medical history, symptoms, signs and medications was assessed to be of high quality in 84%, 39%, 56%, 56% and 39%, respectively, the corresponding information assessed to be of high quality in discharge letters was for actual medical situation 96%, medical history 92%, symptoms 60%, signs 55% and medications 82%. Only half of the discharge letters had satisfactory information on ADL. Some two-thirds of the patients were assessed to have had large health benefits from the general hospital care in question. One of six patients could have been treated without a general hospital admission. The specialists assessed that 77% of the patients had had a large benefit from the general hospital care; however, the general practitioners assessment was only 59%. One of four of the discharge letters did not describe who was responsible for follow-up care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study from one general hospital both referral and discharge letters were missing vital medical information, and referral letters to such an extent that it might represent a health hazard for older patients. There was also low consensus between health professionals at primary and secondary level of what was high benefit of care for older patients at a general hospital.</p

Psychometric properties of two physical activity questionnaires, the AQuAA and the PASE, in cancer patients

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of two self-report physical activity (PA) questionnaires - the AQuAA (Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents) and PASE (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) - in cancer patients. Methods: Test-retest reliability was determined by administering the questionnaires twice within 5 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD) were calculated. Construct validity was determined by comparing the questionnaire results with ActiGraph accelerometer scores using Spearman correlation coefficients (r(s)) and ICCs. Content validity was examined using the Three-Step Test-Interview (TSTI). Results: Reliability for the AQuAA scores were fair to excellent (ICC = 0.57 to 0.78). Reliability for the PASE scores ranged from good to excellent (ICC = 0.67 to 0.90). Correlations between the ActiGraph and the AQuAA and the PASE were low (r(s) = 0.05 and 0.16 respectively, and ICC = -0.001 to 0.44). The TSTI showed that participants experienced difficulties with the examples provided with the questions, the perceptions of intensity level of PA, and with recalling the time spent on PA. Conclusions: Both questionnaires showed good to excellent test-retest reliability for most scores. Construct validity of both questionnaires was low, as indicated by the low correlations with the ActiGraph. Except for a few difficulties that participants perceived when filling out the questionnaires, the content validity of both questionnaires was goo

Validity, reliability and feasibility of tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care: a systematic review

Background: The objective of this study is to identify and review screening tools for frailty in older adults admitted to inpatient hospital care with respect to their validity, reliability and feasibility. Methods: Studies were identified through systematically searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and PsycINFO and screening reference lists till June 2014. Papers dealing with screening tools aimed at identifying frail older patients in in-hospital care, and including information about validity, reliability or feasibility, were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). Results: From the originally identified 2001 studies 32 studies met the inclusion criteria, in which 16 screening tools were presented. The screening tools showed different characteristics with respect to the number of items, the method of administration and the domains included. The most frequently studied tools with respect to predictive validity were the Identification Seniors At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Stratification Tool (TRST). Studies retrieved poorer information about reliability and feasibility. Overall sensitivity was fairly good. The ISAR, ISAR-HP (Identification Seniors At Risk Hospitalized Patients) and Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) generally had the best sensitivity. Conclusions: Many screening tools are available for daily practice. These tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care could be useful. For no tool, however, is clear evidence available yet regarding validity, reliability and feasibility. The overall sensitivity of the included screening tools was fairly good, whereas information on reliability and feasibility was lacking for most tools. In future research more attention should be given to the latter items