The number of older patients undergoing surgery is increasing due to changing demographics, surgical and anaesthetic advances and shifts in patient expectations of healthcare. The benefits of surgery in older people are well documented and include symptom control and increased life expectancy. However, older surgical patients present not only with the index pathology requiring surgery but with concurrent age related physiological decline, multimorbidity and geriatric syndromes. These additional issues increase the risk of adverse postoperative outcome, in particular of postoperative medical and functional complications. In recent years, there has been recognition of the need for collaborative surgical and geriatric medicine working to address the health care needs of the increasingly complex older surgical population. Guidelines have been published to support clinicians looking after older surgical patients, however, there has been little published on the establishment of such services. In this paper, we describe the evolution of the proactive care of older patients undergoing surgery (POPS) service and how through the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment methodology and intervention throughout the surgical pathway, outcomes for complex older surgical patients can be improved.

Introduction: Medical cannabinoids have received significant mainstream media attention in recent times due to an evolving political and clinical landscape. Whilst the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of some childhood epilepsy syndromes is increasingly recognized, medical cannabinoids may also have potential clinical roles in the treatment of older adults. Prescribing restrictions for medical cannabinoids in certain jurisdictions (including the UK) has recently been relaxed. However, few geriatricians have the detailed knowledge or awareness of the potential risks or rewards of utilizing cannabinoids in the older person; even fewer geriatricians have direct experience of using these drugs in their own clinical practice. Older persons are more likely to suffer from medical illness representing potential indications for medical cannabinoids (e.g., pain); equally they may be more vulnerable to any adverse effects. Aim: This narrative literature review aims to provide a brief introduction for the geriatrician to the potential indications, evidence-base, contra-indications and side effects of medical cannabinoids in older people. Methods: A search was conducted of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and psycINFO, Cochrane and Web of Science databases. Reference lists were hand searched. Abstracts and titles were screened, followed by a full text reading of relevant articles. Results: 35 studies were identified as relevant for this narrative review. Conclusions: Cannabinoids demonstrate some efficacy in the treatment of pain and chemotherapy-related nausea; limited data suggest potential benefits in the treatment of spasticity and anxiety. Risks of cannabinoids in older patients appear to be moderate, and their frequency comparable to other analgesic drug classes. However, the quality of research is weak, and few older patients have been enrolled in cannabinoid studies. Dedicated research is needed to determine the efficiency and safety of cannabinoids in older patients.

Background: An ageing population has resulted in a rise in the number of hip and knee replacement surgeries in the UK. The pre-operative pathway is plagued with issues causing long delays and cancellations. Virtual healthcare technologies have a growing evidence base to help solve these issues. One problem of implementing these technologies is the resistance to change mentality from healthcare professionals. By getting their opinions on the place of these technologies within the pre-operative pathway, a united front can be formed to help deliver change.Methods: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders within the orthopaedic pre-operative pathway at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. General topics included the different technologies that could be used within the pathway, their uses and associated benefits and problems. Interviews were audio-recorded, before being manually transcribed and then analysed to form categories and themes.Results: Various uses, benefits and problems were identified by healthcare professionals for each modality of technology. E-forms were seen as a high reward, low-risk intervention. Remote patient monitoring and teleconsultations had their bonuses, but feasibility was a primary concern. Web-based interventions were seen as an intervention of the past, whereas virtual reality was seen as perhaps being ahead of its time. M-health was very positively viewed due to its all-encompassing nature. Digital illiteracy emerged as a consistent problem for most technologies.Conclusions: Current literature, the results from this study and technology trends within society highlight both M-health and E-forms as the 2 most promising virtual healthcare technologies for use in the pre-operative pathway for orthopaedics. Areas such as pre-operative assessment, triaging and prehabilitation are prime candidates for virtual intervention. Future research should also consider including patient opinions on any proposed interventions, as well as taking into account barriers to implementation.

Background: An ageing population has resulted in a rise in the number of hip and knee replacement surgeries in the UK. The pre-operative pathway is plagued with issues causing long delays and cancellations. Virtual healthcare technologies have a growing evidence base to help solve these issues. One problem of implementing these technologies is the resistance to change mentality from healthcare professionals. By getting their opinions on the place of these technologies within the pre-operative pathway, a united front can be formed to help deliver change. Methods: 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders within the orthopaedic pre-operative pathway at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. General topics included the different technologies that could be used within the pathway, their uses and associated benefits and problems. Interviews were audio-recorded, before being manually transcribed and then analysed to form categories and themes. Results: Various uses, benefits and problems were identified by healthcare professionals for each modality of technology. E-forms were seen as a high reward, low risk intervention. Remote patient monitoring and teleconsultations had their bonuses, but feasibility was a primary concern. Web-based interventions were seen as an intervention of the past, whereas virtual reality was seen as perhaps being ahead of its time. M-health was very positively viewed due to its all-encompassing nature. Digital illiteracy emerged as a consistent problem for most technologies. Conclusions: Current literature, the results from this study and technology trends within society highlight both M-health and E-forms as the 2 most promising virtual healthcare technologies for use in the pre-operative pathway for orthopaedics. Areas such as pre-operative assessment, triaging and prehabilitation are prime candidates for virtual intervention. Future research should also consider including patient opinions on any proposed interventions, as well as taking into account barriers to implementation.