Geriatric Choosing Wisely choice of recommendations in France: a pragmatic approach based on clinical audits.

BACKGROUND: The international Choosing Wisely campaign seeks to improve the appropriateness of care, notably through large campaigns among physicians and users designed to raise awareness of the risks inherent in overmedication. METHODS: In deploying the Choosing Wisely campaign, the French Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology chose early operationalization via a tool for clinical audit over a limited area before progressive dissemination. This enabled validation of four consensual recommendations concerning the management of urinary tract infections, the prolonged use of anxiolytics, the use of neuroleptics in dementia syndromes, and the use of statins in primary prevention. The fifth recommendation concerns the importance of a dialogue on the level of care. It was written by patient representatives directly involved in the campaign. RESULTS: The first cross-regional campaign in France involved 5337 chart screenings in 43 health facilities. Analysis of the results showed an important variability in practices between institutions and significant percentage of inappropriate prescriptions, notably of psychotropic medication. DISCUSSION: The high rate of participation of target institutions shows that geriatrics professionals are interested in the evaluation and optimization of professional practices. Frequent overuse of psychotropic medication highlights the need of campaigns to raise awareness and encourage deprescribing.

French Multicenter Evaluation of the Appropriateness of Admission to the Emergency Department of the Over-80s.

BACKGROUND: Persons over 80 represents 40% of patients in French emergency services. We assessed the appropriateness of these admissions and sought to identify risk factors for inappropriate hospital stays. METHODS: The appropriateness of admission was assessed in a prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study in eight hospitals in France by means of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (French version, AEPf) during two non-consecutive periods of four weeks in 2010. We analyzed admission of patients aged 80 and over who were admitted to the hospital after a stay in the emergency department of the same hospital. Demographics and morbidity factors were recorded as were administrative hospitalization data to identify risk factors associated with inappropriate admissions. We also evaluated the economic impact of inappropriate admissions. For cost analysis, all variables were obtained from anonymized hospital reports of a diagnosis-related group system used for funding of the hospitals by health insurance. RESULTS: During two different periods, 1577 patients were included. 139 (8.8%) hospital admissions were inappropriate according to explicit criteria of the AEPf, but 18 of these (1.1%) were in fact considered appropriate by the physician responsible for the admission, leading to 121 (7.7%) inappropriate admissions. Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients with heart disease were less often subject to inappropriate admission (odds ratio OR= 0.36 [0.23; 0.56], p < 0.001), as also were patients who usually lived in a nursing home (OR = 0.53 [0.30; 0.87], p = 0.018) and patients with higher Acute Physiology Scores (OR = 0.97 [0.95; 0.99], p < 0.001). Inappropriate admission increased when patients had a syndrome as the main diagnosis (OR = 1.81 [1.81; 2.83], p = 0.010). By contrast, cognitive functions, gait and balance disturbance or falls, behavioral disorders and method of transport to the emergency department did not change the probability of inappropriateness. The median cost of the hospital stay of an older patient was 3 606.5 [2 498.1; 4 994.2] euros for inappropriate admissions. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate emergency admissions of older patients were infrequent. None of the geriatric syndromes were linked with the phenomenon and principle causes were severity of illness, mention of a cardiac disease, unclear pattern of consultation and institutionalized way of life.

[Refusal of care faced by case manager from elderly persons in complex situation: cross perspectives]. / Refus de soins opposés aux gestionnaires de cas par des personnes âgées en situation médico-sociale complexe : regards croisés.

PURPOSE: Case management is a new professional field in France. It is addressed to elderly persons living in community whose situation is regarded as particularly complex. Case managers have to assess needs and coordinate necessary services. One common criteria of complexity is refusal of care. The objective of this study is to compare the words of users with those of case managers about refusal of care, in order to understand its meaning, professionals' attitudes and ethical challenges. METHODS: Two researchers have cooperated on this qualitative research: the first one, anthropologist, interviewed 19 individuals, and 11 of their caregivers. The second one, geriatrician and researcher in medical ethics, lead four focus groups gathering a total of 18 case managers. RESULTS: Refusal of care often is the result of the will of preserving one's identity, compromised by illness. Individuals seek control on their life. Facing this behaviour, case managers try to secure the individual, by establishing a personal relationship that respects their choices, even if care has to be delayed. Refusal of care may sometimes disclose a desire to vanish, in front of which professionals meet their own limits. CONCLUSION: To recognise an elderly person that refuses care as a unique individual who can make choices secure his identity, and allow him to change.