Could olfactory identification be a prognostic factor in detecting cognitive impairment risk in the elderly?

Aging contributes to the deterioration of the olfactory system in humans. Several studies indicate that the olfactory identification test alone may function as a screening test for olfactory dysfunction and they are more feasible to apply in clinical practice. Olfactory identification may be a predictor for cognitive impairment. Multiple studies have considered the use of odor identification as a measure to identify the conversion from normality to mild cognitive impairment or dementia. The objectives were (i) to elucidate the associations between cognitive status and olfactory identification performance in aging; (ii) understand the predictive value of olfactory capacity in identifying subjects with cognitive impairment risk; and (iii) to study how cognitive status and olfactory identification relate with other variables of wellness in aging, such as functional capabilities and clinical measures. For this purpose, a group of 149 participants (77.15 ± 7.29 years; 73 women of 76.7 ± 8 years and 76 men of 77.6 ± 6.52 years) were recruited and were subjected to a sociodemographic questionnaire, a psychological screening tool of general cognitive status, an olfactory identification evaluation, and clinical measures. The participants were divided into groups based on their cutoff scores of previous scientific reports about the Spanish version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Our results indicate an age-associated decline in olfactory identification ability and intensity of odor perception. The predictive ability of olfactory identification scores for the risk of mild and severe impairment is around 80%. Olfactory identification decreases with cognitive function. Performance in odor identification is associated with impairment of episodic memory and executive functions. These findings further our current understanding of the association between cognition and olfaction, and support olfactory assessment in screening those at higher risk of dementia.

[Predictive ability of baseline frailty and handgrip strength at admission on outcomes at discharge in a geriatric functional recovery unit]. / Capacidad predictiva de fragilidad basal y fuerza de prensión al ingreso en resultados al alta en una unidad geriátrica de recuperación funcional.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive capacity of different frailty scales, as well as the strength of the handgrip, and to determine their relationship with clinical favourable outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective study of patients admitted to the Geriatric Functional Recovery Unit (GFRU) of the Hospital Central Cruz Roja. The «FRAIL¼ scale, «Clinical Frailty Scale¼ (CFS) and «Fragil-VIG¼ index, and handgrip strength by hydraulic dynamometer were completed on admission. A functional gain was assumed as 20 or more points in the Barthel Index and return to home, as good outcomes at discharge. The discriminative capacity of favourable outcomes for each frailty scale and handgrip strength was analysed by means of ROC curves, calculating the C statistic (area under the curve = AUC). RESULTS: The analysis included 74 patients (median age 82 years; 48.5% women), admitted for stroke recovery (65%), orthopaedic pathology (16%), and other causes (19%). The prevalence of frailty varied between 31% (FRAIL scale), 40% (CFS), and 57.5% («Fragil-VIG¼). Median handgrip strength was 15 Kg in males (interquartile range 11-21), and 9 Kg in females (interquartile range 7-12). At discharge, 51.5% of patients had a functional gain of 20 or more points in Barthel index, and 63% returned to their previous home. The discriminating ability to achieve acceptable functional gain at discharge was good for CFS (AUC = 0.72; 95% CI; 0.60-0.84) and «Fragil-VIG¼ (AUC = 0.72; 95% CI;0.58-0.82), and handgrip strength was the only tool related to return home (AUC = 0.68; 95% CI;0.56-0.81). CONCLUSION: To evaluate frailty on admission to a GFRU contributes to predicting favourable clinical outcomes, but the discriminating capacity of each scale is variable.

Repercusión de un sistema centralizado de ingresos sobre la eficacia y eficiencia de una unidad geriátrica de recuperación funcional / Impact of a centralised hospital admission system on the efficacy and efficiency of a geriatric functional recovery unit

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la influencia del cambio en la gestión de ingresos en una unidad geriátrica de recuperación funcional (UGRF) sobre su actividad y resultados asistenciales. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. Se recogieron datos registrados desde el año 2000 de la UGRF del Hospital Central Cruz Roja, agrupados en periodos de 4 años, salvo los ingresos centralizados (septiembre de 2016-diciembre de 2018). Los datos recogidos al ingreso fueron Escala Funcional y Mental de Cruz Roja, índice de Barthel, diagnóstico principal motivo del deterioro funcional (que se agrupó en ictus, patología ortopédica y cuadros de inmovilidad multifactorial) y comorbilidad evaluada por el índice de Charlson. Como variables de resultado se estudiaron la ganancia funcional al alta, tanto global como relativa, la estancia hospitalaria, la eficiencia funcional, las altas a residencia y los retraslados a unidad de agudos. Analizamos la relación entre los ingresos realizados de manera centralizada desde una unidad externa y el periodo previo (ingresos gestionados directamente desde la UGRF) en las variables resultados utilizando un análisis multivariante (regresión lineal para variables resultado continuas y regresión logística para las dicotómicas) ajustado por variables al ingreso. RESULTADOS: En el análisis multivariante los pacientes ingresados desde la unidad central presentaron una mayor ganancia funcional global y relativa (diferencia de medias de 3,49 puntos con IC 95%=1,65-5,33 y 12,41% con IC 95%=0,74-24,08, respectivamente), mayor estancia (12,92 días; IC 95%=11,54-14,30) y menor eficiencia (−0,36; IC 95%=−0,16 a −0,57), mayor riesgo de institucionalización (OR 1,61; IC 95%=1,19-2,16) y riesgo de retraslado a unidad de agudos (OR 3,16; IC 95%=2,24-4,47). CONCLUSIONES: El sistema centralizado de ingreso influyó en la mejora de parámetros funcionales, pero a costa de una mayor estancia y una menor eficiencia asistencial, objetivándose un incremento de la institucionalización al alta y de los retraslados a unidades de agudos

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of a change in the management of admissions on the activity and care outcomes of a Geriatric Functional Recovery Unit (GFRU). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted. Since 2000, the Hospital Central Cruz Roja GFRU has been collecting data grouped into periods of 4 years, except for the centralised admissions (September 2016-December 2018). The data collected on admission included the Red Cross Functional and Mental scales, the Barthel index, the main diagnosis of the functional decline (grouped into stroke, orthopaedic problem, and multifactorial immobility episodes), and comorbidity evaluated by the Charlson index. The following outcome variables were analysed: the overall and relative functional gain at discharge; length of hospital stay; the functional efficiency, discharges to nursing homes, and transfers to acute care units. An analysis was made of the relationship between the admissions from the centralised unit and the previous period (directly admission managed by GFRU), using multivariate analysis (linear regression for continuous outcome variables and logistic regression for the dichotomous ones), adjusted for admission variables. RESULTS: Patients admitted from the centralised unit showed a greater overall and relative functional gain (difference between both means: 3.49 points, 95% CI; 1.65-5.33, and 12.41%, 95% CI; 0.74-24.08, respectively), longer stay (12.92 days, 95% CI; 11.54-14.30) and lower efficiency (−0.36, 95% CI; −0.16 to −0.57), higher risk of institutionalisation (OR 1.61, 95% CI; 1.19-2.16), and transfers to acute care units (OR 3.16, 95% CI; 2.24-4.47). CONCLUSIONS: A centralised admissions system had an influence on the improvement of functional parameters in the patients, but with a longer length of hospital stay, and lower efficiency. Increases in institutionalisation at discharge and transfers to acute care units were also observed

[Impact of a centralised hospital admission system on the efficacy and efficiency of a geriatric functional recovery unit]. / Repercusión de un sistema centralizado de ingresos sobre la eficacia y eficiencia de una unidad geriátrica de recuperación funcional.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of a change in the management of admissions on the activity and care outcomes of a Geriatric Functional Recovery Unit (GFRU). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted. Since 2000, the Hospital Central Cruz Roja GFRU has been collecting data grouped into periods of 4 years, except for the centralised admissions (September 2016-December 2018). The data collected on admission included the Red Cross Functional and Mental scales, the Barthel index, the main diagnosis of the functional decline (grouped into stroke, orthopaedic problem, and multifactorial immobility episodes), and comorbidity evaluated by the Charlson index. The following outcome variables were analysed: the overall and relative functional gain at discharge; length of hospital stay; the functional efficiency, discharges to nursing homes, and transfers to acute care units. An analysis was made of the relationship between the admissions from the centralised unit and the previous period (directly admission managed by GFRU), using multivariate analysis (linear regression for continuous outcome variables and logistic regression for the dichotomous ones), adjusted for admission variables. RESULTS: Patients admitted from the centralised unit showed a greater overall and relative functional gain (difference between both means: 3.49 points, 95% CI; 1.65-5.33, and 12.41%, 95% CI; 0.74-24.08, respectively), longer stay (12.92 days, 95% CI; 11.54-14.30) and lower efficiency (-0.36, 95% CI; -0.16 to -0.57), higher risk of institutionalisation (OR 1.61, 95% CI; 1.19-2.16), and transfers to acute care units (OR 3.16, 95% CI; 2.24-4.47). CONCLUSIONS: A centralised admissions system had an influence on the improvement of functional parameters in the patients, but with a longer length of hospital stay, and lower efficiency. Increases in institutionalisation at discharge and transfers to acute care units were also observed.