External validation of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool in older Dutch hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: Fall prevention is a safety goal in many hospitals. The performance of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) in older inpatients is largely unknown. We aimed to assess the JHFRAT performance in a large sample of Dutch older inpatients, including its trend over time. METHODS: We used an Electronic Health Records (EHR) dataset with hospitalized patients (≥ 70), admitted for ≥ 24 h between 2016 and 2021. Inpatient falls were extracted from structured and free-text data. We assessed the association between JHFRAT and falls using logistic regression. For test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Discrimination was measured by the AUC. For calibration, we plotted the predicted fall probability with the actual probability of falls. For time-related effects, we calculated the AUC per 6 months (using data of patients admitted during the 6 months' time interval) and plotted these different AUC values over time. Furthermore, we compared the model (JHFRAT and falls) with and without adjusting for seasonal influenza, COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter periods. RESULTS: Data included 17,263 admissions with at least 1 JHFRAT measurement, a median age of 76 and a percentage female of 47%. The in-hospital fall prevalence was 2.5%. JHFRAT [OR = 1.11 (1.03-1.20)] and its subcategories were significantly associated with falls. For medium/high risk of falls (JHFRAT > 5), sensitivity was 73%, specificity 51%, PPV 4% and NPV 99%. The overall AUC was 0.67, varying over time between 0.62 and 0.71 (for 6 months' time intervals). Seasonal influenza did affect the association between JHFRAT and falls. COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter did not affect the association. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show an association between JHFRAT and falls, a low discrimination by JHFRAT for older inpatients and over-prediction in the calibration. Improvements in the fall-risk assessment are warranted to improve efficiency.

Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam COVID-19 exposure index: a cross-sectional analysis of the impact of the pandemic on daily functioning of older adults.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop an index to measure older adults' exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic and to study its association with various domains of functioning. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA), a cohort study in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults aged 62-102 years (n=1089) who participated in the LASA COVID-19 study (June-September 2020), just after the first wave of the pandemic. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A 35-item COVID-19 exposure index with a score ranging between 0 and 1 was developed, including items that assess the extent to which the COVID-19 situation affected daily lives of older adults. Descriptive characteristics of the index were studied, stratified by several sociodemographic factors. Logistic regression analyses were performed to study associations between the exposure index and several indicators of functioning (functional limitations, anxiety, depression and loneliness). RESULTS: The mean COVID-19 exposure index score was 0.20 (SD 0.10). Scores were relatively high among women and in the southern region of the Netherlands. In models adjusted for sociodemographic factors and prepandemic functioning (2018-2019), those with scores in the highest tertile of the exposure index were more likely to report functional limitations (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.38), anxiety symptoms (OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.82 to 5.44), depressive symptoms (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.55 to 4.00) and loneliness (OR: 2.97; 95% CI: 2.08 to 4.26) than those in the lowest tertile. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults in the Netherlands, higher exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with worse functioning in the physical, mental and social domain. The newly developed exposure index may be used to identify persons for whom targeted interventions are needed to maintain or improve functioning during the pandemic or postpandemic.

Delay or postponement of medical care among older adults in the Netherlands at earlier and later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: The aim of the current study was to compare cancellations or postponement of medical care among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic between 2021 and 2020. METHODS: Data of respondents aged ≥ 62 years were used from the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam (LASA), collected in 2020 and 2021, directly after the main COVID-19 waves in the Netherlands. A questionnaire assessed cancellations of medical care and postponed help-seeking behavior. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, cancellations declined from 35% in 2020 (sample n = 1128) to 17% in 2021 (sample n = 1020). Healthcare-initiated cancellations declined from 29 to 8%. Respondent-initiated cancellations declined from 12 to 7%. Postponed help-seeking remained around 8%. CONCLUSIONS: In 2021, less cancellations were reported compared to just after the first wave of the pandemic in 2020, while postponed help-seeking remained the same. It is important to investigate how cancellations and postponed help-seeking can be prevented in future pandemics.

Older adults report cancellation or avoidance of medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam.

PURPOSE: Delay of routine medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic may have serious consequences for the health and functioning of older adults. The aim of this study was to investigate whether older adults reported cancellation or avoidance of medical care during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore associations with health and socio-demographic characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional data of 880 older adults aged ≥ 62 years (mean age 73.4 years, 50.3% female) were used from the COVID-19 questionnaire of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, a cohort study among community-dwelling older adults in the Netherlands. Cancellation and avoidance of care were assessed by self-report, and covered questions on cancellation of primary care (general practitioner), cancellation of hospital outpatient care, and postponed help-seeking. Respondent characteristics included age, sex, educational level, loneliness, depression, anxiety, frailty, multimorbidity and information on quarantine. RESULTS: 35% of the sample reported cancellations due to the COVID-19 situation, either initiated by the respondent (12%) or by healthcare professionals (29%). Postponed help-seeking was reported by 8% of the sample. Multimorbidity was associated with healthcare-initiated cancellations (primary care OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.09-3.50; hospital OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.28-2.74) and respondent-initiated hospital outpatient cancellations (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.04-4.12). Depressive symptoms were associated with postponed help-seeking (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.24). CONCLUSION: About one third of the study sample reported cancellation or avoidance of medical care during the first months of the pandemic, and this was more common among those with multiple chronic conditions. How this impacts outcomes in the long term should be investigated in future research.