Introduction: The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model. Results: In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11–13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45–48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46–52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14–17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10–12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24–35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16–24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5–9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 44) for FIs. Conclusions: Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.

Background To date, delirium prevalence and incidence in acute hospitals has been estimated from pooled findings of studies performed in distinct patient populations. Objective To determine delirium prevalence across an acute care facility. Design A point prevalence study. Setting A large tertiary care, teaching hospital. Patients 311 general hospital adult inpatients were assessed over a single day. Of those, 280 had full data collected within the study's time frame (90%). Measurements Initial screening for inattention was performed using the spatial span forwards and months backwards tests by junior medical staff, followed by two independent formal delirium assessments: first the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) by trained geriatric medicine consultants and registrars, and, subsequently, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98) by experienced psychiatrists. The diagnosis of delirium was ultimately made using DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) criteria. Results Using DSM-IV criteria, 55 of 280 patients (19.6%) had delirium versus 17.6% using the CAM. Using the DRS-R98 total score for independent diagnosis, 20.7% had full delirium, and 8.6% had subsyndromal delirium. Prevalence was higher in older patients (4.7% if 80 years) and particularly in those with prior dementia (OR=15.33, p<0.001), even when adjusted for potential confounders. Although 50.9% of delirious patients had pre-existing dementia, it was poorly documented in the medical notes. Delirium symptoms detected by medical notes, nurse interview and patient reports did not overlap much, with inattention noted by professional staff, and acute change and sleep-wake disturbance noted by patients. Conclusions Our point prevalence study confirms that delirium occurs in about 1/5 of general hospital inpatients and particularly in those with prior cognitive impairment. Recognition strategies may need to be tailored to the symptoms most noticed by the detector (patient, nurse or primary physician) if formal assessments are not available.

Advance care planning (ACP), involving discussions between patients, families and healthcare professionals on future healthcare decisions, in advance of anticipated impairment in decision-making capacity, improves satisfaction and end-of-life care while respecting patient autonomy. It usually results in the creation of a written advanced care directive (ACD). This systematic review examines the impact of ACP on several outcomes (including symptom management, quality of care and healthcare utilisation) in older adults (>65years) across all healthcare settings. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searches of the CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane databases. A total of 3646 older adults were included (range 72-88 years). Seven studies were conducted with community dwellers and the other two RCTs were conducted in nursing homes. Most studies did not implement a standardised ACD, or measure the impact on quality of end-of-life care or on the death and dying experience. All studies had some risk of bias, with most scoring poorly on the Oxford Quality Scale. While ACP interventions are well received by older adults and generally have positive effects on outcomes, this review highlights the need for well-designed RCTs that examine the economic impact of ACP and its effect on quality of care in nursing homes and other sectors.

Introduction. Although frailty is common among community-dwelling older adults, its prevalence in Europe and how this varies between countries is unclear. Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis of literature on frailty prevalence in 22 European countries involved in the Joint Action ADVANTAGE was conducted. Results. Sixty-two papers, representing 68 unique datasets were included. Meta-analysis showed an overall estimated frailty prevalence of 18% (95% confidence interval, CI, 15-21%). The prevalence in community (n = 53) vs non-community based studies (n = 15) was 12% (95% CI 10-15%) and 45% (95% CI 27-63%), respectively. Pooled prevalence in community studies adopting a physical phenotype was 12% (95% CI 10-14%, n = 45) vs 16% (95% CI 7-29%, n = 8) for all other definitions. Sub-analysis of a subgroup of studies assessed as high-quality (n = 47) gave a pooled estimate of 17% (95% CI 13-21%). Conclusions. The considerable and significant heterogeneity found warrants the development of common methodological approaches to provide accurate and comparable frailty prevalence estimates at population-level.

Introduction: differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from normal cognition (NC) is difficult. The AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) 135, sensitive in differentiating MCI from dementia, was modified to improve sensitivity and specificity, producing the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen. Objective: this study compared the sensitivity and specificity of the Qmci with the Standardised MMSE and ABCS 135, to differentiate NC, MCI and dementia. Methods: weightings and subtests of the ABCS 135 were changed and a new section ‘logical memory’ added, creating the Qmci. From four memory clinics in Ontario, Canada, 335 subjects (154 with MCI, 181 with dementia) were recruited and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, attending with the subjects, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as controls (n = 630). Results: the Qmci was more sensitive than the SMMSE and ABCS 135, in differentiating MCI from NC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 compared with 0.67 and 0.83, respectively, and in differentiating MCI from mild dementia, AUC of 0.92 versus 0.91 and 0.91. The ability of the Qmci to identify MCI was better for those over 75 years. Conclusion: the Qmci is more sensitive than the SMMSE in differentiating MCI and NC, making it a useful test, for MCI in clinical practice, especially for older adults.

Increasing pressure on limited healthcare resources has necessitated the development of measures promoting early discharge and avoiding inappropriate hospital (re)admission. This systematic review examines the evidence for interventions in acute hospitals including (i) hospital-patient discharge to home, community services or other settings, (ii) hospital discharge to another care setting, and (iii) reduction or prevention of inappropriate hospital (re)admissions. Academic electronic databases were searched from 2005 to 2018. In total, ninety-four eligible papers were included. Interventions were categorized into: (1) pre-discharge exclusively delivered in the acute care hospital, (2) pre- and post-discharge delivered by acute care hospital, (3) post-discharge delivered at home and (4) delivered only in a post-acute facility. Mixed results were found regarding the effectiveness of many types of interventions. Interventions exclusively delivered in the acute hospital pre-discharge and those involving education were most common but their effectiveness was limited in avoiding (re)admission. Successful pre- and post-discharge interventions focused on multidisciplinary approaches. Post-discharge interventions exclusively delivered at home reduced hospital stay and contributed to patient satisfaction. Existing systematic reviews on tele-health and long-term care interventions suggest insufficient evidence for admission avoidance. The most effective interventions to avoid inappropriate re-admission to hospital and promote early discharge included integrated systems between hospital and the community care, multidisciplinary service provision, individualization of services, discharge planning initiated in hospital and specialist follow-up.