Implementation of the Acute Care for Elders Strategy to Improve the Quality of Care Transitions in Quebec and Ontario: a Retrospective Multiple Case Study.

Background: In 2016, two Canadian hospitals participated in a quality improvement (QI) program, the International Acute Care for Elders (ACE) Collaborative, and sought to adapt and implement a transition coach intervention (TCI). Both hospitals were challenged to provide optimal continuity of care for an increasing number of older adults. The two hospitals received initial funding, coaching, educational materials, and tools to adapt the TCI to their local contexts, but the QI project teams achieved different results. We aimed to compare the implementation of the ACE TCI in these two Canadian hospitals to identify the factors influencing the adaptation of the intervention to the local contexts and to understand their different results. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multiple case study, including documentary analysis, 21 semi-structured individual interviews, and two focus groups. We performed thematic analysis using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Results: Both hospitals met initial organizational goals to varying degrees. Our qualitative analysis highlighted certain factors that were critical to the effective implementation and achievement of the QI project goals: the magnitude of changes and adaptations to the initial intervention; the organizational approaches to the QI project implementation, management, and monitoring; the organizational context; the change management strategies; the ongoing health system reform and organizational restructuring. Our study also identified other key factors for successful care transition QI projects: minimal adaptation to the original evidence-based intervention; use of a collaborative, bottom-up approach; use of a theoretical model to support sustainability; support from clinical and organizational leadership; a strong organizational culture for QI; access to timely quality measures; financial support; use of a knowledge management platform; and involvement of an integrated research team and expert guidance. Conclusion: Many of the lessons learned and strategies identified from our analysis will help clinicians, managers, and policymakers better address the issues and challenges of adapting evidence-based innovations in care transitions for older adults to local contexts.

Staff perspectives of a nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric model of care in a large academic hospital: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that models of care involving geriatric care in orthopedics decrease hospitalizations, mortality, length of stay and post-operative complications. This article presents an example of a nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric model of care in a large academic hospital in Ontario. The overall goal was to explore staff perspectives regarding the nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric model of care. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods approach consisting of an online questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group with staff. RESULTS: Questionnaire of staff showed overall support for functions of the NP within the model. Interviews with healthcare providers, and leadership as well as one focus group with orthopedic surgeons showed that despite the lack of formal awareness of the NP-led orthogeriatric model of care, staff felt that the model provided better care for the geriatric hip fracture population. CONCLUSION: In the current context of geriatricians' shortages to provide post-surgical care to geriatric patients, the staff described that geriatric care of hip fracture patients can be well accomplished by a NP. Further improvement efforts to create better awareness of the NP-led orthogeriatric model among the care team is needed.

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.

Comparative assessment of two frailty instruments for risk-stratification in elderly surgical patients: study protocol for a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is an aggregate expression of susceptibility to poor outcomes, owing to age-, and disease-related deficits that accumulate within multiple domains. Older patients who are frail before surgery are at an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, and use a disproportionately high amount of healthcare resources. While frailty is now a well-established risk factor for adverse postoperative outcomes, the perioperative literature lacks studies that: 1) compare the predictive accuracy of different frailty instruments; 2) consider the impact of frailty on patient-reported outcome measures; and 3) consider the acceptability and feasibility of using frailty instruments in clinical practice. METHODS: We will conduct a multicenter prospective cohort study comparing the predictive accuracy of the modified Fried Index (mFI) with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) among consenting patients aged 65 years and older having elective major non-cardiac surgery. The primary outcome will be disability free survival at 90 days after surgery, a patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes will include complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, readmission and total health system costs. We will compare the accuracy of frailty instruments using the relative true positive rate and relative false positive rate. These measures can be interpreted as the relative difference in the probability of one instrument identifying a true case of death or new disability compared to another instrument, or the relative difference in the probability of one instrument identifying a false case of death or new disability, respectively. We will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of each instrument. DISCUSSION: Frailty is an important prognostic factor in the growing population of older patients having surgery. This study will provide novel findings regarding the choice of an accurate, clinically useable frailty instrument in predicting patient reported outcomes, as well as morbidity, mortality and resource use. These findings will inform current practice and future research.