Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicentre prospective study

The main objective of this study was to describe geriatric recommendations based on a geriatric assessment (GA) and to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations.publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicentre prospective study journaltitle: Journal of Geriatric Oncology articlelink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2015.07.005 content_type: article copyright: Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.status: publishe

Corrigendum to "Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicenter prospective study" [J. Geriatr. Oncol. 6 (2015) 401-410]

The authors regret: A calculation error was corrected in Table 3. As mentioned under the table, the percentage of patients under ‘Baseline’ was calculated from the total no. of patients with geriatric recommendations data (n = 932 pts). This was mistakenly calculated from the number of patients with available GA data (n = 979). Percentages have been recalculated. The corrected table is reproduced here (Table 3). We emphasize that these percentages are not mentioned in the text of the paper nor do they change any of the conclusions. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.status: publishe

Corrigendum to "Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicenter prospective study" [J. Geriatr. Oncol. 6 (2015) 401-410].

The authors regret: A calculation error was corrected in Table 3. As mentioned under the table, the percentage of patients under ‘Baseline’ was calculated from the total no. of patients with geriatric recommendations data (n = 932 pts). This was mistakenly calculated from the number of patients with available GA data (n = 979). Percentages have been recalculated. The corrected table is reproduced here (Table 3). We emphasize that these percentages are not mentioned in the text of the paper nor do they change any of the conclusions. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused

Multicenter implementation of geriatric assessment in Belgian patients with cancer: A survey on treating physicians' general experiences and expectations

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Materials and Methods: A survey was carried out in 9 Belgian hospitals, which participated in a national GA implementation project focusing on older patients with cancer. A newly developed questionnaire was completed by their treating physicians. Data collection comprised of reviewing hospital data, general respondent data, and treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding GA. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Eighty-two physicians from 9 hospitals participated. The GA team composition can vary substantially, with a nurse as core member. Ideally, all older patients with cancer in whom a treatment decision is necessary, should benefit from the GA. Nearly all GA domains are reported as very important. Availability of GA results can be improved. Treating physicians want geriatricians to coordinate geriatric recommendations related to the identified GA problems, and expect from trained healthcare workers (THCWs) to collect GA data, to report GA results, and to follow-up the implementation of geriatric recommendations. Conclusion: This study identifies relevant information for improving the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer in Belgium and reveals priorities for a THCW from the treating physician's point of view. To increase the effectiveness of GA, further efforts are needed to improve the implementation of geriatric recommendations

Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicentre prospective study

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to describe geriatric recommendations based on a geriatric assessment (GA) and to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two-step approach of screening followed by a GA was implemented in nine hospitals in Belgium. Patients >/=70years were included at diagnosis or at disease progression/relapse. Concrete geriatric recommendations were systematically documented and reported to the treating physicians and consisted of referrals to professional health care workers. Patient charts were reviewed after one month to verify which geriatric recommendations have been performed. RESULTS: From August 2011 to July 2012, 1550 patients were included for analysis. The median age was 77 (range: 70-97) and 57.0% were female. A solid tumour was diagnosed in 91.4% and a haematological malignancy in 8.6%. Geriatric screening with the G8 identified 63.6% of the patients for GA (n=986). A median of two geriatric recommendations (range: 1-6) were given for 76.2% (95%CI: 73.4-78.8) of the evaluable patients (n=710). A median of one geriatric recommendation (range: 1-5) was performed in 52.1% (95%CI: 48.4-55.8) of the evaluable patients (n=689). In general, 460 or 35.3% (95%CI: 32.8-38.0) of all the geriatric recommendations were performed. Geriatric recommendations most frequently consisted of referrals to the dietician (60.4%), social worker (40.3%), and psychologist (28.9%). CONCLUSION: This implementation study provides insight into GA-based recommendations/interventions in daily oncology practice. Geriatric recommendations were given in about three-fourths of patients. About one-third of all geriatric recommendations were performed in approximately half of these patients

A Belgian Survey on Geriatric Assessment in Oncology Focusing on Large-Scale Implementation and Related Barriers and Facilitators

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London