If brief and easy to use self report screening tools are available to identify frail elderly, this may avoid costs and unnecessary assessment of healthy people. This study investigates the predictive validity of three self-report instruments for identifying community-dwelling frail elderly.
DOCUMENT
Background: Due to differences in the definition of frailty, many different screening instruments have been developed. However, the predictive validity of these instruments among community-dwelling older people remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate whether combined (i.e. sequential or parallel) use of available frailty instruments improves the predictive power of dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL), mortality and hospitalization. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study with two-year followup was conducted among pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands. Measurements: Four combinations of two highly specific frailty instruments (Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index) and two highly sensitive instruments (Tilburg Frailty Indicator, Groningen Frailty Indicator) were investigated. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for all single instruments as well as for the four combinations, sequential and parallel. Results: 2,420 individuals participated (mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 60.5% female) in our study. Sequential use increased the levels of specificity, as expected, whereas the PPV hardly increased. Parallel use increased the levels of sensitivity, although the NPV hardly increased. Conclusions: Applying two frailty instruments sequential or parallel might not be a solution for achieving better predictions of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Our results show that the combination of different screening instruments does not improve predictive validity. However, as this is one of the first studies to investigate the combined use of screening instruments, we recommend further exploration of other combinations of instruments among other study populations.
DOCUMENT
The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3±6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specifcity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specifcity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.
DOCUMENT
Bij de richtlijn horen 1) een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing en 2) een samenvattingskaart. Deze richtlijn beoogt ggz-professionals - in het bijzonder verpleegkundigen - te ondersteunen bij de somatische screening op gezondheidsproblemen bij mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening, en ondersteuning te bieden bij de planning en uitvoering van vervolgactiviteiten voor preventie en tijdige diagnostiek en behandeling van somatische problemen. Gerichte leefstijlinterventies kunnen risicofactoren voor bepaalde somatische aandoeningen gunstig beïnvloeden. De richtlijn richt zich op volwassen patiënten (18-65 jaar) met een ernstige psychische aandoening of een verhoogd risico. De aanbevelingen zijn ook toepasbaar voor de POH-ggz. Medeauteurs: Marieke van Piere, Maarten Bak, Merlijn Bakkenes, Digna van der Kellen, Sonja van Hamersveld, Ronald van Gool, Katie Dermout, Titia Feldmann, Anneriek Risseeuw, Anneke Wijtsma-van der Kolk, Ingrid van Vuuren, Matthijs Rümke, Evelyn Sloots-Jongen, Paul de Heij, Richard Starmans, Cilia Daatselaar, Christine van Veen en Marleen Hermens (Werkgroep Richtlijnontwikkeling Algemene somatische screening & Leefstijl)
MULTIFILE
In this paper validity and compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments are the central themes. A screening instrument can be called valid if it identifies performance that is important to society. A screening instrument is called compatible if these instruments can be used interchangeably. Validity The outcome of the content-analysis approach suggest that there is clearly not a perfect match between the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF, indicating that the SAM and KLD screening instruments taken the CSAF as the standard, cannot be called valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. However, as discussed earlier, assessing validity is not a binary phenomenon. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will not do. To make things more complicated, the validity of a measure also depends on the aggregation level under observation. It makes a big difference if validity is assessed at a high (i.e. Dimension) or low aggregation (i.e. Sustainability Item) level . At the highest level there is a perfect match with the CSAF, indicating that both screening instruments are valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. At the lowest level the situation is quite different. Here we see that overlap is relatively poor. Besides, the weight distributions of the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF are also largely dissimilar. When we break the validity discussion down to the Dimension level, we can see that overlap between the SAM and KLD instruments is also relatively poor, although the SAM instrument is slightly more attuned to the CSAF than the KLD instrument. This most notably applies to the Governance Dimension. The SAM instrument scores relatively poor on environmental issues. This is due to the fact that we analyzed the generic (i.e. non-industry specific) screening instrument. SAM typically addresses environmental issues in industry specific supplements. CompatibilityThe second question in this study concerns the compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments. Or more accurately phrased: the extent to which these rating schemes are compatible. If we would consider compatibility assessment of screening instruments as a binary phenomenon, then we should conclude that the SAM and KLD instruments are not compatible.However, just like validity, assessing the compatibility of screening instruments is not a binary phenomenon. The extent to which the rating schemes of the two SRAs are compatible relates to the aggregation level. At the highest aggregation ( or Dimension) level the screening instruments are perfectly compatible. Both instruments cover governance, social, environmental and economic issues. At the lowest (or Sustainability Item) level the situation is quite different. At this level compatibility of both instruments is poor. Overlap is poor and the weight distributions are hardly correlated. Obviously both instruments are reflect different interpretations of corporate sustainability performance. Compatibility is highest for the Social Dimension. For the Governance, Environment and Economic Dimension compatibility is very poor. The overall conclusion should therefore be that that compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments is (very) poor and that for this reason these instruments cannot
LINK
After being hospitalised, 30–60% of older patients experience a decline in functioning, resulting in a decreased quality of life and autonomy. The objective of this study was to establish a screening instrument for identifying older hospitalised patients at risk for functional decline by comparing the predictive values of three screening instruments: identification of seniors at risk, care complexity prediction instrument and hospital admission risk profile.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Diagnosing dementia in people with severe/profound intellectual (and multiple) disabilities (SPI(M)D) is complex. Whereas existing dementia screening instruments as a whole are unsuitable for this population, a number of individual items may apply. Therefore, this study aimed to identify applicable items in existing dementia screening instruments. Methods: Informant interviews about 40 people with SPI(M)D were conducted to identify applicable items in the Dementia Scale for Down Syndrome, Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Down Syndrome II scale, Dementia Questionnaire for persons with Mental Retardation and Social competence Rating scale for people with Intellectual Disabilities. Results: Among 193 items, 101 items were found applicable, categorized in 5 domains: behavioral and psychological functioning (60 items), cognitive functioning (25), motor functioning (6), activities of daily living (5) and medical comorbidities (5). Conclusion: Identifying applicable items for people with SPI(M)D is an essential step in developing a dedicated dementia screening instrument for this population.
DOCUMENT
Voor u ligt de wetenschappelijke onderbouwing van de Richtlijn Somatische screening bij patiënten met een ernstige psychische aandoening (2015). Het doel van deze richtlijn is om met name verpleegkundigen te ondersteunen bij de algemene somatische screening van patiënten in de ggz met een ernstige psychische aandoening (EPA) en de te ondernemen vervolgactiviteiten. Somatische screening is zowel klinisch als maatschappelijk zeer relevant, omdat de gezondheidsproblemen van deze patiënten groot zijn en het zorgaanbod er maar beperkt op aansluit. De richtlijn is ontwikkeld voor beroepsgroepen die zorg verlenen aan mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening: verpleegkundigen, verpleegkundig specialisten, sociaal-psychiatrisch verpleegkundigen (SPV’en), consultatief-psychiatrisch verpleegkundigen, psychologen, psychiaters, klinisch geriaters, artsen somatisch werkzaam in de ggz, internisten in de ggz, huisartsen, POH-ggz, physician assistants in de ggz, psychomotorisch therapeuten, fysiotherapeuten, diëtisten, sociotherapeuten, ergotherapeuten en ggz-agogen. Dit rapport biedt achtergrondinformatie voor alle zorgprofessionals, zorgmanagers, kwaliteitsmedewerkers en alle anderen die betrokken zijn bij de algemene somatische zorg voor mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening en die meer willen weten over de totstandkoming van deze richtlijn. In deze onderbouwing is beschikbare wetenschappelijke kennis samengevat en wordt aangegeven welke overige overwegingen, onder meer vanuit praktijkkennis en voorkeuren vanuit patiënten- en familieperspectief, van belang waren bij het formuleren van de richtlijnaanbevelingen. Deze richtlijn is gebaseerd op wetenschappelijke evidentie, grijze literatuur, de praktijkkennis van professionals en voorkeuren vanuit patiënten- en familieperspectief. Het ontwikkeltraject bestond uit een knelpuntanalyse, een systematische inventarisatie van bestaande richtlijnen, een veldinventarisatie van beschikbare interventies, een transparant literatuuronderzoek, diverse commentaarrondes onder de werkgroep- en klankbordgroepleden en een praktijktoets. Bij de richtlijn werden een indicatorenset en een stroomschema ontwikkeld. De indicatoren worden beschreven in dit rapport. De richtlijn zelf is apart uitgegeven (Meeuwissen et al., 2015a).
MULTIFILE
Screening for psychological distress in patients with cancer is currently being debated in the British Journal of Cancer. Screening has been recommended, as elevated levels of distress have been consistently observed and clinicians tend to overlook the need of psychological support (Carlson et al, 2012; Carlson et al, 2013; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2013). On the other hand, it has been argued that screening should not be implemented, as the true benefit of screening and subsequent treatment of psychological distress is far from being definitively proven (Coyne, 2013). Recent findings on human resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) provide a new perspective on detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer. Humans show strong resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events, such as cancer diagnosis and treatment (Bonanno et al, 2011). This observation leads us to propose two alternative approaches towards detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer: ‘screening for psychological distress’ and ‘supporting resilience and case finding’.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Traditional malnutrition screening instruments, including the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), strongly rely on low body mass index (BMI) and weight loss. In overweight/obese patients, this may result in underdetection of malnutrition risk. Alternative instruments, like the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF), include characteristics and risk factors irrespective of BMI. Therefore, we aimed to compare performance of MUST and PG-SGA SF in malnutrition risk evaluation in overweight/obese hospitalized patients.SUBJECTS/METHODS: We assessed malnutrition risk using MUST (≥1 = increased risk) and PG-SGA SF (≥4 = increased risk) in adult patients at hospital admission in a university hospital. We compared results for patients with BMI < 25 kg/m 2 vs. BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2. RESULTS: Of 430 patients analyzed (58 ± 16 years, 53% male, BMI 26.9 ± 5.5 kg/m 2), 35% were overweight and 25% obese. Malnutrition risk was present in 16% according to MUST and 42% according to PG-SGA SF. In patients with BMI < 25 kg/m 2, MUST identified 31% as at risk vs. 52% by PG-SGA SF. In patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2, MUST identified 5% as at risk vs. 36% by PG-SGA SF. Agreement between MUST and PG-SGA SF was low (к = 0.143). Of the overweight/obese patients at risk according to PG-SGA SF, 83/92 (90%) were categorized as low risk by MUST. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of overweight/obese patients is at risk for malnutrition at hospital admission according to PG-SGA SF. Most of them are not identified by MUST. Awareness of BMI-dependency of malnutrition screening instruments and potential underestimation of malnutrition risk in overweight/obese patients by using these instruments is warranted.
DOCUMENT
