"It's a stressful, trying time for the caretaker": an interpretive description qualitative study of postoperative transitions in care for older adults with frailty from the perspectives of informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with frailty have surgery at a high rate. Informal caregivers often support the postoperative transition in care. Despite the growing need for family and caregiver support for this population, little is known about the experience of providing informal care to older adults with frailty during the postoperative transition in care. The purpose of this study was to explore what is important during a postoperative transition in care for older adults with frailty from the perspective of informal caregivers. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using an interpretive description methodology. Seven informal caregivers to older adults [aged ≥ 65 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥ 4) who had an inpatient elective surgery] participated in a telephone-based, semi-structured interview. Audio files were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were constructed: (1) being informed about what to expect after surgery; (2) accessible communication with care providers; (3) homecare resources are needed for the patient; and (4) a support network for the caregivers. Theme 4 included two sub-themes: (a) respite and emotional support and (b) occupational support. CONCLUSIONS: Transitions in care present challenges for informal caregivers of older adults with frailty, who play an important role in successful transitions. Future postoperative transitional care programs should consider making targeted information, accessible communication, and support networks available for caregivers as part of facilitating successful transitions in care.

"I can't imagine having to do it on your own": a qualitative study on postoperative transitions in care from the perspectives of older adults with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Adults aged 65 and older have surgery more often than younger people and often live with frailty. The postoperative transition in care from hospital to home after surgey is a challenging time for older adults with frailty as they often experience negative outcomes. Improving postoperative transitions in care for older adults with frailty is a priority. However, little knowledge from the perspective of older adults with frailty is available to support meaningful improvements in postoperative transitions in care. OBJECTIVE: To explore what is important to older adults with frailty during a postoperative transition in care. METHODS: This qualitative study used an interpretive description methodology. Twelve adults aged ≥ 65 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥ 4) who had an inpatient elective surgery and could speak in English participated in a telephone-based, semi-structured interview. Audio files were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were constructed: 1) valuing going home after surgery; 2) feeling empowered through knowledge and resources; 3) focusing on medical and functional recovery; 4) informal caregivers and family members play multiple integral roles; and 5) feeling supported by healthcare providers through continuity of care. Each theme had 3 sub-themes. CONCLUSION: Future programs should focus on supporting patients to return home by empowering patients with resources and clear communication, ensuring continuity of care, creating access to homecare and virtual support, focusing on functional and medical recovery, and recognizing the invaluable role of informal caregivers.

A model to predict level of adherence to prehabilitation in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Preoperative exercise could improve postoperative outcomes for people with frailty; however, little is known about how to predict older people's adherence to exercise before surgery (i.e., prehabilitation) programs. Our objective was to derive and validate a model to predict prehabilitation adherence in older adults living with frailty before cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a nested prospective cohort study of older adults with frailty having cancer surgery who participated in a randomized controlled trial of home-based prehabilitation compared with standard perioperative care. We constructed a multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression model to predict adherence. Covariates were selected a priori based on clinical expertise and systematic review. Optimism was estimated through internal validation using bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 95 participants in the intervention arm of the trial. Percent adherence ranged from 0% to 100%, with a mean (standard deviation) of 61 (34)%. Previous physical activity and age were the only predictors significant at the 5% level. CONCLUSION: A prespecified multivariable model may help to explain a modest degree of variation in prehabilitation adherence in older people with frailty. While this model is an important step toward personalizing prehabilitation support, this study was limited by a small sample size and future research is needed to better understand personalized prediction of prehabilitation adherence in older people with frailty.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'exercice préopératoire pourrait améliorer les issues postopératoires pour les personnes fragilisées; cependant, on ne sait que peu de choses sur la façon de prédire l'observance des personnes âgées à faire de l'exercice avant leur chirurgie (c.-à-d. à suivre des programmes de préadaptation). Notre objectif était de définir et de valider un modèle pour prédire l'observance de la préadaptation chez les personnes âgées fragilisées avant une chirurgie oncologique. MéTHODE: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte prospective imbriquée auprès de personnes âgées fragilisées subissant une chirurgie oncologique qui ont participé à une étude randomisée contrôlée sur la préadaptation à domicile par rapport aux soins périopératoires standard. Nous avons construit un modèle de régression linéaire des moindres carrés ordinaires multivariés pour prédire l'observance. Les covariables ont été sélectionnées a priori sur la base de notre expertise clinique et d'une revue systématique. L'optimisme a été estimé par validation interne à l'aide d'une méthode de rééchantillonnage type « bootstrap ¼. RéSULTATS: La cohorte de dérivation comprenait 95 participant·es dans le volet intervention de l'étude. Le pourcentage d'observance variait de 0 % à 100 %, avec une moyenne (écart type) de 61 (34) %. L'activité physique antérieure et l'âge étaient les seuls prédicteurs significatifs au seuil de 5 %. CONCLUSION: Un modèle multivarié prédéfini peut aider à expliquer un degré modeste de variation dans l'observance de la préadaptation chez les personnes âgées fragilisées. Bien que ce modèle soit une étape importante vers la personnalisation du soutien à la préadaptation, cette étude a été limitée par un échantillon de petite taille; des recherches futures sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre la prédiction personnalisée de l'observance de la préadaptation chez les personnes âgées fragilisées.

Barriers and facilitators to participation in exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery for older adults with frailty: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with frailty are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes after surgery. Exercise before surgery (exercise prehabilitation) may reduce adverse events and improve recovery after surgery. However, adherence with exercise therapy is often low, especially in older populations. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively assess the barriers and facilitators to participating in exercise prehabilitation from the perspective of older people with frailty participating in the intervention arm of a randomized trial. METHODS: This was a research ethics approved, nested descriptive qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial of home-based exercise prehabilitation vs. standard care with older patients (≥ 60 years) having elective cancer surgery, and who were living with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥ 4). The intervention was a home-based prehabilitation program for at least 3 weeks before surgery that involved aerobic activity, strength and stretching, and nutritional advice. After completing the prehabilitation program, participants were asked to partake in a semi-structured interview informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Qualitative analysis was guided by the TDF. RESULTS: Fifteen qualitative interviews were completed. Facilitators included: 1) the program being manageable and suitable to older adults with frailty, 2) adequate resources to support engagement, 3) support from others, 4) a sense of control, intrinsic value, noticing progress and improving health outcomes and 5) the program was enjoyable and facilitated by previous experience. Barriers included: 1) pre-existing conditions, fatigue and baseline fitness, 2) weather, and 3) guilt and frustration when unable to exercise. A need for individualization and variety was offered as a suggestion by participants and was therefore described as both a barrier and facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based exercise prehabilitation is feasible and acceptable to older people with frailty preparing for cancer surgery. Participants identified that a home-based program was manageable, easy to follow with helpful resources, included valuable support from the research team, and they reported self-perceived health benefits and a sense of control over their health. Future studies and implementation should consider increased personalization based on health and fitness, psychosocial support and modifications to aerobic exercises in response to adverse weather conditions.

A systematic review of perioperative clinical practice guidelines for care of older adults living with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative frailty is prevalent and requires complex management, which could be guided by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise CPGs that provide perioperative recommendations specific to older adults living with frailty. METHODS: After protocol registration, we performed a systematic review of CPGs. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and 14 grey literature databases were searched (January 1, 2000 until December 22, 2021). We included all CPGs that contained at least one frailty-specific recommendation related to any phase of the perioperative period. We compiled all relevant recommendations, extracted underlying strength of evidence, and categorised them by perioperative phase of care. Within each phase, recommendations were synthesised inductively into themes. Quality of CPGs was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: From 4707 citations, 13 guidelines were included; 8/13 were focused on the perioperative care of older surgical patients in general. Among 110 recommendations extracted, 37 themes were generated, with the majority pertaining to preoperative care. Four themes were supported by strong evidence: performing preoperative frailty assessments, using multidimensional frailty instruments, reducing urinary catheter use, and following multidisciplinary care and communication throughout the perioperative period. Per AGREE II, most guidelines (8/13; 62%) were recommended for use with modifications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing numbers of patients living with frailty, few guidelines exist that address frailty-specific perioperative care. Given the lack of strong evidence-based recommendations, particularly outside the preoperative period, high-quality primary research is required to underpin future guidelines and better inform the care of older surgical patients with frailty. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42022320149.

Identifying relative efficacy of components of prehabilitation in adult surgical patients: protocol for a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation is a high-priority intervention for patients, the public, clinicians and health systems. However, existing knowledge syntheses are generally low quality and do not provide insights regarding the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components (eg, exercise, nutrition, psychosocial or cognitive interventions). The objective of the planned review is to evaluate the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components to inform current care, implementation and future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (CNMA). We will use a peer-reviewed search strategy to identify all randomised trials of prehabilitation in adult surgical patients from Ovid Medline, Embase, the CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with grey literature. All stages of the review and data extraction process will be performed in duplicate, following recommended best practices. To compare the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components (prespecified as exercise, nutrition, psychosocial or cognitive interventions), we will use CNMA, an extension of network meta-analysis that allows estimation of the contributions to efficacy of each component of a multicomponent intervention through direct and indirect comparisons. We will use additive CNMA models for critical outcomes (postoperative complications, patient-reported recovery, physical recovery and length of stay); standard care will be the common reference condition. Pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review of published data does not require ethical review. Results will be disseminated via scientific conferences, peer-reviewed publications, social and traditional media and via our research network to target partners and organisations.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to routine preoperative frailty assessment: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Preoperative frailty assessment is recommended by multiple practice guidelines and may improve outcomes, but it is not routinely performed. The barriers and facilitators of routine preoperative frailty assessment have not been formally assessed. Our objective was to perform a theory-guided evaluation of barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment. METHODS: This was a research ethics board-approved qualitative study involving physicians who perform preoperative assessment (consultant and resident anesthesiologists and consultant surgeons). Semistructured interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to frailty assessment. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two research assistants to identify specific beliefs relevant to each theoretical domain. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 clinicians (nine consultant anesthesiologists, nine consultant surgeons, and ten anesthesiology residents). Six domains (Knowledge [100%], Social Influences [96%], Social Professional Role and Identity [96%], Beliefs about Capabilities [93%], Goals [93%], and Intentions [93%]) were identified by > 90% of respondents. The most common barriers identified were prioritization of other aspects of assessment (e.g., cardio/respiratory) and a lack of awareness of evidence and guidelines supporting frailty assessment. The most common facilitators were a high degree of familiarity with frailty, recognition of the importance of frailty assessment, and strong intentions to perform frailty assessment. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment are multidimensional, but generally consistent across different types of perioperative physicians. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators can guide development of evidence-based strategies to increase frailty assessment.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité est recommandée par plusieurs lignes directrices de pratique et pourrait améliorer les devenirs, mais elle n'est pas systématiquement réalisée. Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation de routine de la fragilité préopératoire n'ont pas été officiellement évalués. Notre objectif était de mener une évaluation théorique des obstacles et des facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité. MéTHODE: Il s'agissait d'une étude qualitative approuvée par le comité d'éthique de la recherche impliquant des médecins menant des évaluations préopératoires (anesthésiologistes, résidents en anesthésiologie et chirurgiens). Des entrevues semi-structurées ont été réalisées par un assistant de recherche formé en se fondant sur le Cadre des domaines théoriques afin d'identifier les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les transcriptions des entrevues ont été codées de manière indépendante par deux assistants de recherche afin d'identifier les croyances spécifiques pertinentes à chaque domaine théorique. RéSULTATS: Nous avons interrogé 28 cliniciens (neuf anesthésiologistes, neuf chirurgiens et dix résidents en anesthésiologie). Six domaines (Connaissances [100 %], Influences sociales [96 %], Rôle et identité socio-professionnels [96 %], Croyances concernant les capacités [93 %], Objectifs [93 %] et Intentions [93 %]) ont été identifiés par > 90 % des répondants. Les obstacles les plus fréquemment cités étaient la priorisation accordée à d'autres aspects de l'évaluation (p. ex., cardio/respiratoire) et le manque de connaissances des données probantes et des lignes directrices à l'appui de l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les facilitateurs les plus courants étaient un degré élevé de familiarité avec la fragilité, la reconnaissance de l'importance de l'évaluation de la fragilité et de fortes intentions de réaliser une évaluation de la fragilité. CONCLUSION: Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité sont multidimensionnels, mais généralement uniformes parmi les différents types de médecins périopératoires. La connaissance des obstacles et des facilitateurs peut guider l'élaboration de stratégies fondées sur des données probantes pour augmenter l'évaluation de la fragilité.

PREPARE trial: a protocol for a multicentre randomised trial of frailty-focused preoperative exercise to decrease postoperative complication rates and disability scores.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery for older people with frailty by addressing physical and physiologic deficits. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of home-based multimodal prehabilitation in decreasing patient-reported disability and postoperative complications in older people with frailty having major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of home-based prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale>4) having elective inpatient major non-cardiac, non-neurologic or non-orthopaedic surgery. Patients will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of >3 weeks of prehabilitation (exercise (strength, aerobic and stretching) and nutrition (advice and protein supplementation)). The study has two primary outcomes: in-hospital complications and patient-reported disability 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include survival, lower limb function, quality of life and resource utilisation. A sample size of 750 participants (375 per arm) provides >90% power to detect a minimally important absolute difference of 8 on the 100-point patient-reported disability scale and a 25% relative risk reduction in complications, using a two-sided alpha value of 0.025 to account for the two primary outcomes. Analyses will follow intention to treat principles for all randomised participants. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 1785) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20190409-01T). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04221295.

Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study: protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study to evaluate significant new disability after major surgery in older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults prioritise surviving surgery, but also preservation of their functional status and quality of life. Current approaches to measure postoperative recovery, which focus on death, complications and length of hospitalisation, may miss key relevant domains. We propose that postoperative disability is an important patient-centred outcome to measure intermediate-to-long recovery after major surgery in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study is a multicentre cohort study of 2000 older adults (≥65 years) having major non-cardiac surgery. Its objectives are to characterise the incidence, trajectories, risk factors and impact of new significant disability after non-cardiac surgery. Disability is assessed using WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 instrument and participants' level-of-care needs. Disability assessments occur before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes are (1) significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 1 year after surgery, (2) increased care needs or death at 6 months after surgery and (3) increased care needs or death at 1 year after surgery. We will use multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association of preoperative characteristics and surgery type with outcomes, joint modelling to characterise longitudinal time trends in WHODAS scores over 12 months after surgery, and longitudinal latent class mixture models to identify clusters following similar trajectories of disability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The FIT After Surgery study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Recruitment began in December 2019 but was placed on hold in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recruitment was gradually restarted in October 2020, with 1-year follow-up expected to finish in 2023. Publication of the primary results is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Home-based prehabilitation with exercise to improve postoperative recovery for older adults with frailty having cancer surgery: the PREHAB randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability as a result of decreased reserves. Prehabilitation may increase reserve and improve postoperative outcomes. Our objective was to determine if home-based prehabilitation improves postoperative functional recovery in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. METHODS: This double blind randomised trial enrolled people ≥60 yr having elective cancer surgery and ≥3 weeks from enrolment to surgery as eligible. Participation in a remotely supported, home-based exercise prehabilitation program plus nutritional guidance was compared with standard care plus written advice on age-appropriate activity and nutrition. The primary outcome was 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, quality of life, disability, length of stay, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Of 543 patients assessed, 254 were eligible and 204 (80%) were randomised (102 per arm); 182 (94 intervention and 88 control) had surgery and were analysed. Mean age was 74 yr and 57% were female. Mean duration of participation was 5 weeks, mean adherence was 61% (range 0%-100%). We found no significant difference in 6MWT at follow-up (+14 m, 95% confidence interval -26-55 m, P=0.486), or for secondary outcomes. Analyses using a prespecified adherence definition of ≥80% supported improvements in 6MWT distance, complication count, and disability. CONCLUSIONS: A home-based prehabilitation program did not significantly improve postoperative recovery or other outcomes in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. Program adherence may be a key mediator of prehabilitation efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02934230.

Evaluations of postoperative transitions in care for older adults: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Most people having major surgery are over the age of 65. The transition out of hospital is a vulnerable time for older adults, particularly after major surgery. Research on postoperative transitions in care is growing, but it is not clear how postoperative transitions are being evaluated. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize processes and outcomes used to evaluate postoperative transitions in care for older adults. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review that included articles evaluating a postoperative transition in care among adults aged > 65 having major elective surgery. We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINHAL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their respective inception dates to April 6, 2021. We also searched The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov from their respective inception dates to April 6, 2021. Screening and data extraction was completed by reviewers in duplicate. Data relevant to study design and objective, intervention description, and process or outcome evaluations were extracted. Process evaluations were categorized using the Ideal Transitions in Care Framework, and outcome evaluations were categorized using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Triple Aim Framework. RESULTS: After screening titles and abstracts and full-text article review, we included 20 articles in our final synthesis. There was variability in the processes and outcomes used to evaluate postoperative transitions in care. The most common outcomes evaluated were health service utilization (n = 9), including readmission and Emergency Department visits, experiential outcomes (n = 9) and quality of life (n = 7). Process evaluations included evaluating the education provided to patients to promote self-management (n = 6), coordination of care among team members (n = 3) and outpatient follow-up (n = 3). Only two articles measured frailty, one article used theory to guide their evaluations and no articles engaged knowledge users. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistency in how postoperative transitions in care were evaluated. There is a need to use theories and to engage key stakeholders involved in postoperative transitions in care, including older adults and their caregivers, to identify the most appropriate approaches for developing and evaluating interventions to meaningfully improve care.

Development and evaluation of an evidence-based, theory-grounded online Clinical Frailty Scale tutorial.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a robust predictor of adverse outcomes in older people. Practice guidelines recommend routine screening for frailty; however, this does not occur regularly. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a validated, feasible instrument that can be used in a variety of clinical settings and is associated with many adverse outcomes. Our objective was to develop and evaluate an online training module to guide frailty assessment using the CFS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of clinical experts developed an evidence-based, theory-grounded online training module for users who wished to perform frailty assessment using the CFS. The module was prospectively evaluated for user satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility using a standardised questionnaire. Qualitative feedback was analysed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Version 1 of the CFS module was used 627 times from 21 October 2019 to 24 March 2020. Satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility of the module were positively rated (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale n = 582 [93%], n = 507, [81%], n = 575, [91%], respectively). Qualitative feedback highlighted ease of use, likelihood of users to share the module with others and opportunities to increase multimedia content. CONCLUSION: An online tutorial, designed using evidence and theory to guide frailty assessment using the CFS, was positively rated by users. The module's content and structure was rated effective and feasible, and users were satisfied with, and likely to share, the module. Research evaluating the module's impact on the accuracy of frailty assessment is required.

Patient prioritization of routine and patient-reported postoperative outcome measures: a prospective, nested cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Understanding which outcomes matter most and improving outcomes for the growing population of older surgical patients are top priorities for Canadian anesthesia research. Nevertheless, there is little understanding of which outcomes older surgical patients prioritize most highly. We evaluated how older people prioritized six outcomes after elective noncardiac surgery. These outcomes were recommended in core outcome sets for perioperative medicine. METHODS: Following ethical approval, we conducted a prospective, nested, cross-sectional study of people one year after they had major elective noncardiac surgery. Participants were asked to rate the importance of six commonly measured outcomes (complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, days at home, disability score, and developing a new disability) on an 11-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions elicited other preferences. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated using Bayesian multivariate regression. K-means clustering identified subgroups of patients based on overall prioritization. Thematic analysis was applied to open-ended responses. RESULTS: One hundred and one consecutive participants responded. All outcomes scored at least 7.7/10 on average. Complications and discharge location were most highly rated, but only days at home and length of stay had substantial probability (> 99%) of being rated lower than the other four outcomes. Thematic analysis identified the need for greater procedure-specific information, support services, and physical recovery measures. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly recorded and recommended outcomes are reassuringly relevant to older people; however, system-related measures are less highly valued than those more directly related to health and function. Outcomes may need to be personalized to properly evaluate the success of perioperative care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Pour la recherche canadienne en anesthésie, l'une des priorités absolues consiste à comprendre quelles issues comptent le plus et à améliorer les issues pour la population croissante de patients chirurgicaux plus âgés. Néanmoins, nous ne savons que peu de choses quant aux issues les plus importantes pour les patients chirurgicaux plus âgés. Nous avons évalué la façon dont les personnes âgées priorisaient six issues après une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente. Ces issues étaient recommandées au sein d'ensembles de critères de base en médecine périopératoire. MéTHODE: Après avoir obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique, nous avons mené une étude prospective, imbriquée et transversale auprès de patients un an après une chirurgie majeure non cardiaque non urgente. Les participants devaient évaluer l'importance de six critères couramment mesurés (complications, durée de séjour, dispositions à la sortie, jours à la maison, score d'invalidité et développement d'une nouvelle incapacité) sur une échelle de Likert de 11 points. Les questions ouvertes ont suscité d'autres préférences. Les comparaisons par paires ont été évaluées par régression multivariée bayésienne. L'algorithme des K-moyennes a identifié des sous-groupes de patients en fonction de leur priorisation globale. L'analyse thématique a été appliquée aux réponses ouvertes. RéSULTATS: Cent un participants consécutifs ont répondu. Tous les critères ont obtenu une note d'au moins 7,7/10 en moyenne. Les complications et le lieu de sortie étaient les mieux notés, mais seuls les jours à la maison et la durée de séjour ont affiché une probabilité substantielle (> 99 %) d'être évalués moins haut que les quatre autres critères. L'analyse thématique a révélé la nécessité d'une plus grande information spécifique à l'intervention, de services de soutien et de mesures de rétablissement physique. CONCLUSION: De façon rassurante, les critères couramment enregistrés et recommandés sont pertinents pour les personnes âgées; toutefois, les mesures liées au système sont moins appréciées que celles qui sont plus directement liées à la santé et à la fonction. Il est possible que les critères dussent être personnalisés pour évaluer de façon adéquate le succès des soins périopératoires.

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Frailty leaves older adults vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. Frailty assessment is recommended by multiple COVID-19 guidelines to inform care and resource allocation. We aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize studies reporting the association of frailty with outcomes (informed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim [health, resource use, and experience]) in individuals with COVID-19. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Studies reporting associations between frailty and outcomes in the setting of COVID-19 diagnosis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with COVID-19. MEASUREMENTS: Following review of titles, abstracts and full text, we included 52 studies that contained 118,373 participants with COVID-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic studies tool. Our primary outcome was mortality, secondary outcomes included delirium, intensive care unit admission, need for ventilation and discharge location. Where appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted and unadjusted effect measures by frailty instrument. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was the most used frailty instrument. Mortality was reported in 37 studies. After confounder adjustment, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.14; hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.33-2.61). On an unadjusted basis, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with increased odds of delirium and reduced odds of intensive care unit admission. Results were generally consistent using other frailty instruments. Patient-reported, cost and experience outcomes were rarely reported. CONCLUSION: Frailty is associated with a substantial increase in mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, even after adjustment. Delirium risk is also increased. Frailty assessment may help to guide prognosis and individualized care planning, but data relating frailty status to patient-reported outcomes are urgently needed to provide a more comprehensive overview of outcomes relevant to older adults.

Evaluation of a preoperative personalized risk communication tool: a prospective before-and-after study.

PURPOSE: Patients want personalized information before surgery; most do not receive personalized risk estimates. Inadequate information contributes to poor experience and medicolegal complaints. We hypothesized that exposure to the Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment (PREDICT) app, a personalized risk communication tool, would improve patient knowledge and satisfaction after anesthesiology consultations compared with standard care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective clinical study (before-after design) and used patient-reported data to calculate personalized risks of morbidity, mortality, and expected length of stay using a locally calibrated National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator embedded in the PREDICT app. In the standard care (before) phase, the application's materials and output were not available to participants; in the PREDICT app (after) phase, personalized risks were communicated. Our primary outcome was knowledge score after the anesthesiology consultation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, anxiety, feasibility, and acceptability. RESULTS: We included 183 participants (90 before; 93 after). Compared with standard care phase, the PREDICT app phase had higher post-consultation: knowledge of risks (14.3% higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 22.0; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (0.8 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4; P = 0.03). Anxiety was unchanged (- 1.9%; 95% CI, - 4.2 to 0.5; P = 0.13). Acceptability was high for patients and anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: Exposure to a patient-facing, personalized risk communication app improved knowledge of personalized risk and increased satisfaction for adults before elective inpatient surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); registered 5 February 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les patients veulent disposer d'informations personnalisées avant leur chirurgie, mais la plupart d'entre eux ne reçoivent pas d'estimations de leur risque personnalisées. Des informations inadéquates contribuent à une mauvaise expérience et à des plaintes médicolégales. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse qu'une exposition à l'application PREDICT (Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment), un outil de communication du risque personnalisé, améliorerait les connaissances et la satisfaction des patients après leurs consultations en anesthésiologie comparativement à des soins standard. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude clinique prospective (de type avant-après) et utilisé les données rapportées par les patients afin de calculer leur risque personnalisé de morbidité et de mortalité, ainsi que la durée de séjour anticipée à l'aide d'un calculateur de risque tiré du Programme national d'amélioration de la qualité chirurgicale que nous avons calibré localement et intégré à l'application PREDICT. Dans la phase de soins standard (avant), le contenu et les résultats de l'application n'étaient pas divulgués aux participants; dans la phase comportant l'application PREDICT (après), les risques personnalisés étaient communiqués. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était le score des connaissances des patients après la consultation en anesthésiologie. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient la satisfaction des patients et leur niveau d'anxiété ainsi que la faisabilité et l'acceptabilité d'une telle approche. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 183 participants (90 avant; 93 après). Comparativement à la phase de soins standard, la phase avec l'application PREDICT a démontré un niveau plus élevé de connaissances des risques post consultation (14,3 % plus élevé; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 6,5 à 22,0; P < 0,001) et de satisfaction (0,8 point; IC 95 %, 0,1 à 1,4; P = 0,03). L'anxiété est demeurée inchangée (− 1,9 %; IC 95 %, − 4,2 à 0,5; P = 0,13). L'acceptabilité était élevée, tant chez les patients que chez les anesthésiologistes. CONCLUSION: L'exposition des patients à une application de communication du risque personnalisé a amélioré leurs connaissances de leur risque personnalisé et augmenté la satisfaction des adultes avant une chirurgie non urgente et non ambulatoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); enregistrée le 5 février 2018.

Frailty and long-term postoperative disability trajectories: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with early postoperative outcomes. How frailty influences long-term postoperative recovery is poorly described. Our objective was to evaluate the association of frailty with postoperative disability trajectories in the year after surgery. METHODS: Prespecified 1-yr follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort study. Patients ≥65 yr were assessed for frailty before major elective noncardiac surgery (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] and Fried Phenotype [FP]). The primary outcome was patient-reported disability score (using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) at baseline, 30, 90, and 365 days after surgery. Repeated measures linear regression estimated the association of preoperative frailty with changes in disability scores over time, adjusted for procedure. Group-based trajectory modelling was used to identify subgroup trajectories of people with frailty. RESULTS: One-year follow-up was complete for 687/702 (97.9%) participants. Frailty was associated with a significant difference in disability trajectory (P<0.0001). Compared with baseline, people with frailty experienced a decrease in disability score at 365 days (CFS frailty: -7.3 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.2 to -4.5); (FP frailty: -5.4 points, 95% CI -8.5 to -2.3); people without frailty had no significant change in their disability score from baseline (no CFS frailty: +0.8 points, 95% CI -1.7 to 3.2; no FP frailty: +1.1 points, 95% CI -3.5 to 1.3). More than one-third of people with frailty experienced an early increase in disability before achieving a net decrease in disability. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making and care planning should integrate the possible trade-offs between early adverse outcomes with longer-term benefit when frailty is present in older surgical patients.

Frailty as a Predictor of Death or New Disability After Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of the modified Fried Index (mFI) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict death or patient-reported new disability 90 days after major elective surgery. BACKGROUND: The association of frailty with patient-reported outcomes, and comparisons between preoperative frailty instruments are poorly described. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter cohort study. We determined frailty status in individuals ≥65 years having elective noncardiac surgery using the mFI and CFS. Outcomes included death or patient-reported new disability (primary); safety incidents, length of stay (LOS), and institutional discharge (secondary); ease of use, usefulness, benefit, clinical importance, and feasibility (tertiary). We measured the adjusted association of frailty with outcomes using regression analysis and compared true positive and false positive rates (TPR/FPR). RESULTS: Of 702 participants, 645 had complete follow up. The CFS identified 297 (42.3%) with frailty, the mFI 257 (36.6%); 72 (11.1%) died or experienced a new disability. Frailty was significantly associated with the primary outcome (CFS adjusted odds ratio, OR, 2.51, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.50-4.21; mFI adjusted-OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.57-4.31). TPR and FPR were not significantly different between instruments. Frailty was the only significant predictor of death or new disability in a multivariable analysis. Need for institutional discharge, costs and LOS were significantly increased in individuals with frailty. The CFS was easier to use, required less time and had less missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Older people with frailty are significantly more likely to die or experience a new patient-reported disability after surgery. Clinicians performing frailty assessments before surgery should consider the CFS over the mFI as accuracy was similar, but ease of use and feasibility were higher.

Prospective Comparison of Preoperative Predictive Performance Between 3 Leading Frailty Instruments.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend routine preoperative frailty assessment for older people. However, the degree to which frailty instruments improve predictive accuracy when added to traditional risk factors is poorly described. Our objective was to measure the accuracy gained in predicting outcomes important to older patients when adding the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Fried Phenotype (FP), or Frailty Index (FI) to traditional risk factors. METHODS: This was an analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort of elective noncardiac surgery patients ≥65 years of age. Each frailty instrument was prospectively collected. The added predictive performance of each frailty instrument beyond the baseline model (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, procedural risk) was estimated using likelihood ratio test, discrimination, calibration, explained variance, and reclassification. Outcomes analyzed included death or new disability, prolonged length of stay (LoS, >75th percentile), and adverse discharge (death or non-home discharge). RESULTS: We included 645 participants (mean age, 74 [standard deviation, 6]); 72 (11.2%) participants died or experienced a new disability, 164 (25.4%) had prolonged LoS, and 60 (9.2%) had adverse discharge. Compared to the baseline model predicting death or new disability (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67; R, 0.08, good calibration), prolonged LoS (AUC, 0.73; R, 0.18, good calibration), and adverse discharge (AUC, 0.78; R, 0.16, poor calibration), the CFS improved fit per the likelihood ratio test (P < .02 for death or new disability, <.001 for LoS, <.001 for discharge), discrimination (AUC = 0.71 for death or new disability, 0.76 for LoS, 0.82 for discharge), calibration (good for death or new disability, LoS, and discharge), explained variance (R = 0.11 for death or new disability, 0.22 for LoS, 0.25 for discharge), and reclassification (appropriate directional reclassification) for all outcomes. The FP improved discrimination and R for all outcomes, but to a lesser degree than the CFS. The FI improved discrimination for death or new disability and R for all outcomes, but to a lesser degree than the CFS and the FP. These results were consistent in internal validation. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty instruments provide meaningful increases in accuracy when predicting postoperative outcomes for older people. Compared to the FP and FI, the CFS appears to improve all measures of predictive performance to the greatest extent and across outcomes. Combined with previous research demonstrating that the CFS is easy to use and requires less time than the FP, clinicians should consider its use in preoperative practice.

PREHAB study: a protocol for a prospective randomised clinical trial of exercise therapy for people living with frailty having cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery. Frailty is a key predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes in older people; the multidimensional nature of frailty makes this a population who may derive substantial benefit from exercise prehabilitation. The objective of this trial is to test the efficacy of exercise prehabilitation to improve postoperative functional outcomes for people living with frailty having cancer surgery with curative intent. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a single-centre, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial of home-based exercise prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years having elective cancer surgery (intra-abdominal and intrathoracic) and who are frail (Clinical Frailty Scale >4). The intervention consists of > 3 weeks of exercise prehabilitation (strength, aerobic and stretching). The primary outcome is the 6 min walk test at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include the short physical performance battery, health-related quality of life, disability-free survival, complications and health resource utilisation. The primary outcome will be analysed by intention to treat using analysis of covariance. Outcomes up to 1 year after surgery will be ascertained through linkage to administrative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #2016009-01H). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02934230; Pre-results.