Background: Individuals 65 years or older are presumably more susceptible to becoming frail, which increases their risk of multiple adverse health outcomes. Reversing frailty has received recent attention; however, little is understood about what it means and how to achieve it. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize the evidence regarding the impact of frail-related interventions on older adults living with frailty, identify what interventions resulted in frailty reversal and clarify the concept of reverse frailty. Methods: We followed Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage scoping review approach and conducted searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. We hand-searched the reference list of included studies and conducted a grey literature search. Two independent reviewers completed the title, abstract screenings, and full-text review using the eligibility criteria, and independently extracted approximately 10% of the studies. We critically appraised studies using Joanna Briggs critical appraisal checklist/tool, and we used a descriptive and narrative method to synthesize and analyze data. Results: Of 7499 articles, thirty met the criteria and three studies were identified in the references of included studies. Seventeen studies (56.7%) framed frailty as a reversible condition, with 11 studies (36.7%) selecting it as their primary outcome. Reversing frailty varied from either frail to pre-frail, frail to non-frail, and severe to mild frailty. We identified different types of single and multi-component interventions each targeting various domains of frailty. The physical domain was most frequently targeted (n = 32, 97%). Interventions also varied in their frequencies of delivery, intensities, and durations, and targeted participants from different settings, most commonly from community dwellings (n = 23; 69.7%). Conclusion: Some studies indicated that it is possible to reverse frailty. However, this depended on how the researchers assessed or measured frailty. The current understanding of reverse frailty is a shift from a frail or severely frail state to at least a pre-frail or mildly frail state. To gain further insight into reversing frailty, we recommend a concept analysis. Furthermore, we recommend more primary studies considering the participant’s lived experiences to guide intervention delivery.

Background: There is growing recognition among healthcare professionals that the sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within different settings is variable and suboptimal. Understanding why a particular EBP might be sustained in one setting and not another remains unclear. Recent reviews illustrate the need to identify and analyze existing frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts) that focus solely on the sustainability of EBPs in specific healthcare settings, such as acute care, to illuminate key determinants and facilitate appropriate selection to guide practice and research. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to extract sustainability frameworks. This involved using two available syntheses of the literature and a systematic search of four databases from January 2015 to July 2018: CINHAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ProQuest. We included studies published in English, and if they included sustainability F/M/Ts recommended for use in acute care or an unspecified healthcare organization/setting. F/M/Ts explicitly recommended for use in public health and or community settings were excluded. We then conducted a comparative analysis of F/M/Ts using a modified theory analysis approach, to understand the theoretical underpinnings of each F/M/T, their determinants and concepts hypothesized to influence the sustained use of EBPs within an acute care context. Results: Of 2967 identified citations from the 2 available syntheses and the systematic review, 8 F/M/Ts met the inclusion criteria. We identified 37 core factors, of which 16 were recorded as common factors (occurring within 4 or more of the 8 included F/M/Ts). All factors grouped into 7 main themes: innovation, adopters, leadership and management, inner context, inner processes, outer context, and outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review is the first to include a comprehensive analysis of healthcare sustainability F/M/Ts for the sustained use of EBPs in acute care settings. Findings reveal insights into sustainability as a “process or ongoing stage of use” following initial implementation, suggesting this construct should be added to the definition of sustainability. Results provide a resource of available F/M/Ts and hypothesized factors to consider for acute care team members who are planning or currently implementing EBPs with the goal of improving patient outcomes. It also provides a basis for future research on sustainability in acute care.

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions typically have more complex care needs that require multiple transitions between healthcare settings. Poor care transitions often lead to fragmentation in care, decreased quality of care, and increased adverse events. Emerging research recommends the strong need to engage patients and families to improve the quality of their care. However, there are gaps in evidence on the most effective approaches for fully engaging patients/clients and families in their transitional care. The purpose of this study was to engage older adults with multiple chronic conditions and their family members in the detailed exploration of their experiences during transitions across health care settings and identify potential areas for future interventions. This was a qualitative study using participatory visual narrative methods informed by a socio-ecological perspective. Narrated photo walkabouts were conducted with older adults and family members (n = 4 older adults alone, n = 3 family members alone, and n = 2 older adult/family member together) between February and September 2016. The data analysis of the transcripts consisted of an iterative process until consensus on the coding and analysis was reached. A common emerging theme was that older adults and their family members identified the importance of active involvement in managing their own care transitions. Other themes included positive experiences during care transitions; accessing community services and resources; as well as challenges with follow-up care. Participants also felt a lack of meaningful engagement during discharge planning, and they also identified the presence of systemic barriers in care transitions. The results contribute to our understanding that person- and family-centered care transitions should focus on the need for active involvement of older adults and their families in managing care transitions. Based on the results, three areas for improvement specific to older adults managing chronic conditions during care transitions emerged: strengthening support for person- and family-centered care, engaging older adults and families in their care transitions, and providing better support and resources.

Purpose: The purpose was to describe patients and informal caregivers’ perspectives on how to improve and monitor care during transitions from hospital to home as part of a larger research study to prioritize the components that most influence the development of successful care transition interventions. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study between July and August 2016, during which time semi-structured telephone interviews (n=8) were completed with patients and informal caregivers across select Canadian provinces. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Results: Main themes included: the need for effective communication between providers and patients and informal caregivers; the need for improving key aspects of the discharge process; and increasing patients and informal caregivers involvement in care practices. Participants also provided suggestions on how to best monitor care transitions. Conclusion: This study highlighted the following strategies with patients and informal caregivers: focus on effective communication regarding important information; provide appropriate resources; and increase involvement. Future research is needed to incorporate the input from patients and informal caregivers into the design and implementation of care transition interventions.