Prevalence and risk factors of sarcopenia among adults living in nursing homes

Objectives: Sarcopenia is a progressive loss of skeletal muscle and muscle function, with significant healthand disability consequences for older adults. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors ofsarcopenia among older residential aged care adults using the European Working Group on Sarcopeniain Older People (EWGSOP) criteria.Study design: A cross-sectional study design that assessed older people (n = 102, mean age 84.5 ± 8.2 years)residing in 11 long-term nursing homes in Australia.Main outcome measurements: Sarcopenia was diagnosed from assessments of skeletal mass index bybioelectrical impedance analysis, muscle strength by handheld dynamometer, and physical performanceby the 2.4 m habitual walking speed test. Secondary variables where collected to inform a risk factoranalysis.Results: Forty one (40.2%) participants were diagnosed as sarcopenic, 38 (95%) of whom were categorizedas having severe sarcopenia. Univariate logistic regression found that body mass index (BMI) (Oddsratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–0.94), low physical performance (OR = 0.83; 95% CI0.69–1.00), nutritional status (OR = 0.19; 95% CI 0.05–0.68) and sitting time (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.00–1.39)were predictive of sarcopenia. With multivariate logistic regression, only low BMI (OR = 0.80; 95% CI0.65–0.97) remained predictive.Conclusions: The prevalence of sarcopenia among older residential aged care adults is very high. Inaddition, low BMI is a predictive of sarcopenia

Using intuition or a formal palliative care needs assessment screening process in general practice to predict death within 12 months:A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Population ageing will lead to more deaths with an uncertain trajectory. Identifying patients at risk of dying could facilitate more effective care planning. AIM: To determine whether screening for likely death within 12 months is more effective using screening tools or intuition. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of screening tools (Surprise Question plus the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for Surprise Question positive patients) to predict those at risk of death at 12 months compared with unguided intuition (clinical trials registry: ACTRN12613000266763). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Australian general practice. A total of 30 general practitioners (screening tool = 12, intuition = 18) screened all patients ( n = 4365) aged ≥70 years seen at least once in the last 2 years. RESULTS: There were 142 deaths (screening tool = 3.1%, intuition = 3.3%; p = 0.79). General practitioners identified more at risk of dying using Surprise Question (11.8%) than intuition (5.4%; p = 0.01), but no difference with Surprise Question positive then Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (5.1%; p = 0.87). Surprise Question positive predicted more deaths (53.2%, intuition = 33.7%; p = 0.001), but Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool predictions were similar (5.1%; p = 0.87 vs intuition). There was no difference in proportions correctly predicted to die (Surprise Question = 1.6%, intuition = 1.1%; p = 0.156 and Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool = 1.1%; p = 0.86 vs intuition). Screening tool had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than intuition, but no difference in positive or negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Screening tool was better at predicting actual death than intuition, but with a higher false positive rate. Both were similarly effective at screening the whole cohort for death. Screening for possible death is not the best option for initiating end-of-life planning: recognising increased burden of illness might be a better trigger

End-of-life care in rural and regional Australia: Patients’, carers’ and general practitioners’ expectations of the role of general practice, and the degree to which they were met

The study objective was to explore the characteristics of rural general practice which exemplify optimal end-of-life (EOL) care from the perspective of people diagnosed with cancer, their informal carers and general practitioners (GPs); and the extent to which consumers perceived that actual EOL care addressed these characteristics. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with six people diagnosed with cancer, three informal carers and four GPs in rural and regional Australia. Using a social constructionist approach, thematic analysis was undertaken. Seven characteristics were perceived to be essential for optimal EOL care: (1) commitment and availability, (2) building of therapeutic relationships, (3) effective communication, (4) psychosocial support, (5) proficient symptom management, (6) care coordination and (7) recognition of the needs of carers. Most GPs consistently addressed these characteristics. Comprehensive EOL care that meets the needs of people dying with cancer is not beyond the resources of rural and regional GPs and communities

General practitioners (GPs) and end-of-life care: A qualitative study of Australian GPs and specialist palliative care clinicians

Objectives: General practitioners (GPs) are well placed to be involved in end-of-life care for patients with life-limiting illnesses. However, differing views exist regarding their role. This study aims to explore the views of GPs and specialist palliative care clinicians (SPCCs) on the role that GPs should play in the planning and provision of end-of-life care and important barriers and facilitators to GPs\u27 involvement in end-of-life care including suggestions for improvement. Methods: Qualitative description methodology using semistructured interviews of 11 GPs and 10 SPCCs. Results: The participants identified two key roles that GPs should play in the planning and provision of end-of-life care: care planning and referring to palliative care services and being the primary clinician in charge of patient care. GPs and SPCCs expressed similar views; however, a significant proportion of the GP participants were not actively involved in end-of-life care. Factors affecting GPs\u27 involvement in end-of-life care included: (1) GP and practice factors including continuity of care, long-term relationships with patients, knowledge and skills in end-of-life care, resource limitations and work patterns; (2) communication and collaboration between GPs and the acute healthcare system and (3) communication and collaboration between GPs and SPCCs. Conclusion: GPs have a key role in the planning and provision of end-of-life care. GPs could be encouraged in this role by providing them with education and practical experience in end-of-life care, making changes to remuneration structure, formalised arrangements for shared care and encouraging continuity of care and developing long-term relationship with their patients

Promoting independence in frail older people: a randomised controlled trial of a restorative care service in New Zealand

Background: frail older people often require tailored rehabilitation in order to remain at home, especially following a period of hospitalisation. Restorative care services aim to enhance an older person's ability to remain improve physical functioning, either at home or in residential care but evidence of their effectiveness is limited

General practitioners (GPs) and end-of-life care: a qualitative study of Australian GPs and specialist palliative care clinicians

General practitioners (GPs) are well placed to be involved in end-of-life care for patients with life-limiting illnesses. However, differing views exist regarding their role. This study aims to explore the views of GPs and specialist palliative care clinicians (SPCCs) on the role that GPs should play in the planning and provision of end-of-life care and important barriers and facilitators to GPs' involvement in end-of-life care including suggestions for improvement.Qualitative description methodology using semistructured interviews of 11 GPs and 10 SPCCs.The participants identified two key roles that GPs should play in the planning and provision of end-of-life care: care planning and referring to palliative care services and being the primary clinician in charge of patient care. GPs and SPCCs expressed similar views; however, a significant proportion of the GP participants were not actively involved in end-of-life care. Factors affecting GPs' involvement in end-of-life care included: (1) GP and practice factors including continuity of care, long-term relationships with patients, knowledge and skills in end-of-life care, resource limitations and work patterns; (2) communication and collaboration between GPs and the acute healthcare system and (3) communication and collaboration between GPs and SPCCs.GPs have a key role in the planning and provision of end-of-life care. GPs could be encouraged in this role by providing them with education and practical experience in end-of-life care, making changes to remuneration structure, formalised arrangements for shared care and encouraging continuity of care and developing long-term relationship with their patients

Providing general practice needs-based care for carers of people with advanced cancer: a randomised controlled trial

Backgroun

General practice nurses and physicians and end of life: A systematic review of models of care

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Background: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. In order to maximise the impact of GPs and GPNs, the impact of different models of care that have been developed to support their practice of EoLC needs to be understood. Objective: To examine published models of EoLC that incorporate or support GP and GPN practice, and their impact on patients, families and the health system. Method: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. Results: From 6209 journal articles, 13 papers reported models of care supporting the GP and GPN\u27s role in EoLC or PC practice. Services and guidelines for clinical issues have mixed impact on improving symptoms, but improved adherence to clinical guidelines. National Frameworks facilitated patients being able to die in their preferred place. A single specialist PC-GP case conference reduced hospitalisations, better maintained functional capacity and improved quality of life parameters in both patients with cancer and without cancer. No studies examined models of care aimed at supporting GPNs. Conclusions: Primary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, and most patient and health system outcomes are substantially improved with their involvement. Successful integrative models need to be tested, particularly in non-malignant diseases. Such models need to be explored further. More work is required on the role of GPNs and how to support them in this role

Facilitators and barriers to general practitioner and general practice nurse participation in end-of-life care: systematic review

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. To enhance primary EoLC, the facilitators and barriers to their provision need to be understood. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive description of the facilitators and barriers to GP and GPN provision of PC or EoLC. METHOD: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 62 reviewed papers reported the GP\u27s and GPN\u27s role in EoLC or PC practice. Six themes emerged: patient factors; personal GP factors; general practice factors; relational factors; co-ordination of care; availability of services. Four specific settings were identified: aged care facilities, out-of-hours care and resource-constrained settings (rural, and low-income and middle-income countries). Most GPs provide EoLC to some extent, with greater professional experience leading to increased comfort in performing this form of care. The organisation of primary care at practice, local and national level impose numerous structural barriers that impede more significant involvement. There are potential gaps in service provision where GPNs may provide significant input, but there is a paucity of studies describing GPN routine involvement in EoLC. CONCLUSIONS: While primary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, significant barriers exist to improved GP and GPN involvement in PC. More work is required on the role of GPNs