Malnutrition is common in heart failure (HF), and it is associated with higher hospital readmission and mortality rates. This review aims to answer the question whether nutritional interventions aiming to increase protein and energy intake are effective at improving outcomes for patients with HF who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition or cachexia. Systematic searches of four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)) were conducted on 21 June 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or other interventional studies using protein or energy supplementation for adult HF patients who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition or cachexia were included. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility and risk of bias. Five studies (four RCTs and one pilot RCT) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were small and of limited quality. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) for body weight showed a benefit from the nutritional intervention by 3.83 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 7.50, P = 0.04) from three trials with no significant benefit for triceps skinfold thickness (WMD = − 2.14 mm, 95% CI − 9.07 to 4.79, P = 0.55) from two trials. The combination of personalized nutrition intervention with conventional treatment led to a decrease in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission in one study. Findings of this review suggest that nutritional interventions could potentially improve outcomes in HF patients who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. However, the strength of the evidence is poor, and more robust studies with a larger number of participants are needed.

Background: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression.Objectives: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT).Design: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation.Intervention development: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990–2016 and 1980–2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65–94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the ‘HomeHealth’ intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. ‘HomeHealth’ comprised 3–6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation.Feasibility RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to ‘HomeHealth’ or treatment as usual (TAU).Setting: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK.Participants: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty.Main outcome measures: Feasibility – recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs.Results: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68;p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg;p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire –3.92;p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding.Conclusions: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible.Future work: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted.Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: While malnutrition is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, it is commonly under-recognised. We know little on the views of community-dwelling older people and their carers regarding the management of malnutrition. The aim of the study was: (a) to explore views and dietary practices of older people at risk of malnutrition and their carers; (b) to identify gaps in knowledge, barriers and facilitators to healthy eating in later life; (c) to explore potential interventions for malnutrition in primary care. Methods: A qualitative study was performed using semi-structured interviews with participants recruited from four general practices and a carers’ focus group in London. Community-dwelling people aged ≥75, identified as malnourished or at risk of malnutrition (n = 24), and informal carers of older people (n = 9) were interviewed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Older people at risk of malnutrition rarely recognise appetite or weight loss as a problem. Commonly held perceptions include that being thin is healthy and ‘snacking’ is unhealthy. Changes in household composition, physical or mental health conditions and cognitive impairment can lead to inadequate food intake. Most carers demonstrate an awareness of malnutrition, but also a lack of knowledge of what constitutes a nutritious diet. Although older people rarely seek any help, most would value advice from their GP/practice nurse, a dietitian or another trained professional. Conclusion: Older people at risk of malnutrition and their carers lack knowledge on nutritional requirements in later life but are receptive to intervention. Training for health professionals in delivering tailored dietary advice should be considered.

Geriatric Medicine (GM) holds a crucial role in promoting health and managing the complex medical, cognitive, social, and psychological issues of older people. However, basic principles of GM, essential for optimizing the care of older people, are commonly unknown or undermined, especially in countries where GM is still under development. This narrative review aims at providing insights into the role of GM to non-geriatrician readers and summarizing the main aspects of the added value of a geriatric approach across the spectrum of healthcare. Health practitioners of all specialties are frequently encountered with clinical conditions, common in older patients (such as cancer, hypertension, delirium, major neurocognitive and mental health disorders, malnutrition, and peri-operative complications), which could be more appropriately managed under the light of the approach of GM. The role of allied health professionals with specialized knowledge and skills in dealing with older people’s issues is essential, and a multidisciplinary team is required for the delivery of optimal care in response to the needs and aspirations of older people. Thus, countries should assure the educational background of all health care providers and the specialized health and social care services required to meet the demands of a rapidly aging society.

Background: The coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) tested health care systems worldwide. This qualitative study aimed to explore and understand the experiences, beliefs and concerns of Primary Care Professionals (PCPs) regarding the preparedness and response of primary care to the first wave of the pandemic in Greece, a country where a public structured primary care system has been developing. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 33 PCPs (General Practitioners, community General Internal Medicine Specialists, community Paediatricians and nurses) recruited from all regions of Greece after the first wave of the pandemic (June 2020). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, data were anonymised and analysed. Thematic analysis was applied developing a conceptual framework. Results: Four main themes were identified: a) Primary care unit adaptation and issues faced during the pandemic; b) Management of suspected COVID-19 cases; c) Management of non-suspected cases; d) Consequences of the pandemic. In the first phase of the pandemic, remote management of suspected cases and their referral to the hospital were preferred as a result of a shortage of personal protective equipment and inaccessibility to coronavirus testing in primary care. Due to the discontinuation of regular medical services and the limited in-person contact between doctors and patients, chronic disease management and prevention programmes were left behind. Social and emotional consequences of the pandemic, such as workplace stigma, isolation and social seclusion, deriving from fear of viral transmission, as well as burnout symptoms and exhaustion were commonly experienced among PCPs. Positive consequences of the pandemic were considered to be the recognition of the importance of an empowered public healthcare system by citizens and the valuable insight, knowledge and experience professionals gained in times of crisis. Conclusions: Primary care has a key role to play during and after the pandemic by using its information infrastructure to identify at-risk groups, detect new cases of COVID-19, provide care according to needs, and carry out vaccination programmes. Central coordination and empowerment of primary care will increase its effectiveness, via public awareness, holistic patient management, and unburdening of hospitals.