Globally, the number of drug prescriptions is increasing causing more adverse drug events, which is now a significant cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability that has reached epidemic proportions. The risk of adverse drug events is correlated to very old age, multiple co-morbidities, dementia, frailty, and limited life expectancy, with the major contributor being polypharmacy. Each characteristic alters the risk–benefit balance of medications, typically reducing anticipated benefits and amplifying risk. Current clinical guidelines are based on evidence proven in younger/healthier adult populations using a single disease model and their application to older adults with multimorbidity, in whom testing has not been conducted, yields a different risk–benefit prospect and makes inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy inevitable. Applying inappropriate clinical practice guidelines to older adults is antithetical to good healthcare, is likely to increase health inequity, and is associated with substantial negative clinical, economic, and social implications for health systems. The casualties are on the scale of a war or epidemic, yet are usually invisible in measures of healthcare quality and formal recommendations. Radical and rapid action is required to achieve a better quality of life for older populations and to remain true to the principles of medical professionalism and evidence-based medicine that place patients’ interests and autonomy at the fore. This first International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy position statement briefly details the causes, consequences, and extent of inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy. This article outlines current strategies to reduce inappropriate medication use, provides evidence for their effect, and then proposes recommendations for moving forward with 10 recommendations for action and 12 recommendations for research. We conclude that an urgent integrated effort to reduce inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy should be a leading global target of the highest priority. The cornerstone of this position statement from the International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy is the understanding that without evidence of definite relevant benefit, when it comes to prescribing, for many older patients ‘less is more’. This approach differs from most other current recommendations and guidance in medical care, as the focus is on what, when, and how to stop, rather than on when to start medications/interventions. Disrupting the framework that indiscriminately applies standard guidelines to older adults requires a new approach that better serves patients with multimorbidity. This transition requires a shift in medical education, research, and diagnostic frameworks, and re-examination of the measures used as quality indicators. In achieving this objective, we promote a return to some of the original concepts of evidence-based medicine: which considers scientific data (where it exists), clinical judgment, patient/family preference, and context. A shift is needed: from the current model that focuses on single conditions to one that simultaneously considers multiple conditions and patient priorities. This approach reframes the clinician’s role as a professional providing care, rather than a disease technician.

Frailty is associated with poor outcomes for patients on dialysis and is traditionally measured using tools that assess physical impairment. Alternate measurement tools highlight cognitive and functional domains, requiring clinician, patient, and/or caregiver input. In this study, we compared frailty measures for incident dialysis patients that incorporate patient, clinician, and caregiver perspectives with an aim to contrast the measured prevalence of frailty using tools derived from different conceptual frameworks. A prospective cohort study of incident dialysis patients was conducted between February 2014 and June 2015. Frailty was assessed at dialysis onset using: 1) modified definition of Fried Phenotype (Dialysis Morbidity Mortality Study definition, DMMS); 2) Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS); 3) Frailty Assessment Care Planning Tool (provides CFS grading, FACT-CFS); and 4) Frailty Index (FI). Measures were compared via correlation and sensitivity/specificity analyses. A total of 98 patients participated (mean age of 61 ± 14 years). Participants were primarily Caucasian (91%), male (58%), and the majority started on hemodialysis (83%). The median score for both the CFS and FACT-CFS was 4 (interquartile range of 3–5). The mean FI score was 0.31 (standard deviation ± 0.16). The DMMS identified 78% of patients as frail. The FACT-CFS demonstrated highest correlation (r = 0.71) with the FI, while the DMMS was most sensitive (97%, 100%) and a CFS ≥ 5 most specific (100%, 77%) at corresponding FI cutoff values (>0.21, >0.45). Frailty assessments of incident dialysis patients that include clinician, caregiver and patient perspectives have moderate to strong correlation with the FI. At specified FI cutoff values, the FACT-CFS and DMMS are highly sensitive measures of frailty. The CFS and FACT-CFS may represent viable alternative screening tools in dialysis patients.

Evidence regarding outcomes in the Geriatric Day Hospital (GDH) model of care has been largely inconclusive, possibly due to measurement issues. This prospective cohort study aims to determine whether treatment in a GDH could improve individualized outcome measures using goal attainment scaling (GAS) and whether improvements are maintained 6-months post-discharge. A total of 469 outpatients admitted to a Canadian Geriatric Day Hospital, between December 2008 and June 2011, were included in the analysis (81.1 ± 6.7 years, 66.3% females); a smaller cohort of 121 patients received a follow-up phone call 6 months following discharge. Baseline, discharge and 6 month post-discharge observer-rated measures of mobility, cognition, and function were completed using GAS. Traditional psychometric measures were also captured. The mean number of goals set was 1.6 (SD 0.8) and patients set goals in the following domains: 88% mobility or falls reduction; 18% optimization of home supports; 17% medication optimization;12% cognition; 8% increasing social engagement; and 5% optimization of function. Total GAS was the most responsive measure to change with 86% of patients improving at discharge; mobility goals were the most likely to be achieved. Six-month GAS scores remained significantly higher than GAS scores on admission. Those who had more goals were more likely to improve during GDH admission (OR 1.49, CI 1.02-2.19) but this association was not seen 6 months after discharge. This study demonstrated short- and long-term effectiveness of GDH in helping patients achieve individualized outcome measures using GAS.

Purpose: Recent evidence supports the prognostic significance of frailty for functional decline and poor health outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease. Yet, despite the development of clinical tools to screen for frailty, little is known about the experiential impact of screening for frailty in this setting. The Frailty Assessment for Care Planning Tool (FACT) evaluates frailty across 4 domains: mobility, function, social circumstances, and cognition. The purpose of this qualitative study was as follows: 1) explore the nurse experience of screening for frailty using the FACT tool in a specialized outpatient renal clinic; 2) determine how, if at all, provider perceptions of frailty changed after implementation of the frailty screening tool; and 3) determine the perceived factors that influence uptake and administration of the FACT screening tool in a specialized clinical setting. Methods: A semi-structured interview of 5 nurses from the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Central Zone Renal Clinic was conducted. A grounded theory approach was used to generate thematic categories and analysis models. Results: Four primary themes emerged in the data analysis: “we were skeptical”, “we made it work”, “we learned how”, and “we understand”. As the renal nurses gained a sense of confidence in their ability to implement the FACT tool, initial barriers to implementation were attenuated. Implementation factors – such as realistic goals, clear guidelines, and ongoing training – were important factors for successful uptake of the frailty screening initiative. Conclusion: Nurse participants reported an overall positive experience using the FACT method to screen for frailty and indicated that their understanding of the multiple dimensions and subtleties of “frailty” were enhanced. Future nurse-led FACT screening initiatives should incorporate those factors identified as being integral to program success: realistic goals, clear guidelines, and ongoing training. Adopting the evaluation of frailty as a priority within clinical departments will encourage sustainability.

Goals of care discussions typically focus on decision maker preference and underemphasize prognosis and outcomes related to frailty, resulting in poorly informed decisions. Our objective was to determine whether navigated care planning with nursing home residents or their decision makers changed care plans during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MED-LTC virtual consultation service, led by internal medicine specialists, conducted care planning conversations that balanced information-giving/physician guidance with resident autonomy. Consultation included (1) the assessment of co-morbidities, frailty, health trajectory, and capacity; (2) in-depth discussion with decision makers about health status and expected outcomes; and (3) co-development of a care plan. Non-parametric tests and logistic regression determined the significance and factors associated with a change in care plan. Sixty-three residents received virtual consultations to review care goals. Consultation resulted in less aggressive care decisions for 52 residents (83%), while 10 (16%) remained the same. One resident escalated their care plan after a mistaken diagnosis of dementia was corrected. Pre-consultation, 50 residents would have accepted intubation compared to 9 post-consultation. The de-escalation of care plans was associated with dementia, COVID-19 positive status, and advanced frailty. We conclude that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a specialist-led consultation service for frail nursing home residents significantly influenced decisions towards less aggressive care.

To assess the correlation of orthopedic surgery residents compared with expert geriatricians in the assessment of frailty stage using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in patients with hip fractures. A retrospective chart review was performed from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Patients admitted with a diagnosis of hip fracture were identified. Those patients with a CFS score completed by orthopedic residents with subsequent CFS score completed by a geriatrician during their admission were extracted. Six hundred and forty-eight patients over age 60 (mean 80.5 years, 73.5% female) were admitted during the study period. Orthopaedic residents completed 286 assessments in 44% of admissions. Geriatric medicine consultation was available for 215 patients such that 93 patients were assessed by both teams. Paired CFS data were extracted from the charts and tested for agreement between the 2 groups of raters. CFS assessments by orthopedic residents and geriatrician experts were significantly different at P < .05; orthopedic residents typically assessed patients to be one CFS grade less frail than geriatricians. Despite this, the CFS assessments showed good agreement between residents and geriatricians. Orthopaedic surgery residents are reliable assessors of frailty but tend to underestimate frailty level compared with specialist geriatricians. Given the evidence to support models such as orthogeriatrics to improve outcomes for frail patients, our findings suggest that orthopedic residents may be well positioned to identify patients who could benefit from such early interventions. Our findings also support recent evidence that frailty assessments by orthopedic surgeons may have predictive validity. Low rates of initial frailty assessment by orthopedic residents suggests that further work is required to integrate more global comprehensive care.