Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Red-flag sepsis and SOFA identifies different patient population at risk of sepsis-related deaths on the general ward.

Controversy exists regarding the best diagnostic and screening tool for sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has been shown to be superior to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, however, the performance of "Red Flag sepsis criteria" has not been tested formally.The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of Red Flag sepsis criteria to identify the patients at high risk of sepsis-related death in comparison to SOFA based sepsis criteria. We also investigated the comparison of Red Flag sepsis to quick SOFA (qSOFA), SIRS, and national early warning score (NEWS) scores and factors influencing patient mortality.Patients were recruited into a 24-hour point-prevalence study on the general wards and emergency departments across all Welsh acute hospitals. Inclusion criteria were: clinical suspicion of infection and NEWS 3 or above in-line with established escalation criteria in Wales. Data on Red Flag sepsis and SOFA criteria was collected together with qSOFA and SIRS scores and 90-day mortality.459 patients were recruited over a 24-hour period. 246 were positive for Red Flag sepsis, mortality 33.7% (83/246); 241 for SOFA based sepsis criteria, mortality 39.4% (95/241); 54 for qSOFA, mortality 57.4% (31/54), and 268 for SIRS, mortality 33.6% (90/268). 55 patients were not picked up by any criteria. We found that older age was associated with death with OR (95% CI) of 1.03 (1.02-1.04); higher frailty score 1.24 (1.11-1.40); DNA-CPR order 1.74 (1.14-2.65); ceiling of care 1.55 (1.02-2.33); and SOFA score of 2 and above 1.69 (1.16-2.47).The different clinical tools captured different subsets of the at-risk population, with similar sensitivity. SOFA score 2 or above was independently associated with increased risk of death at 90 days. The sequalae of infection-related organ dysfunction cannot be reliably captured based on routine clinical and physiological parameters alone.

Sepsis-related deaths in the at-risk population on the wards: attributable fraction of mortality in a large point-prevalence study.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis mortality is reported to be high worldwide, however recently the attributable fraction of mortality due to sepsis (AFsepsis) has been questioned. If improvements in treatment options are to be evaluated, it is important to know what proportion of deaths are potentially preventable or modifiable after a sepsis episode. The aim of the study was to establish the fraction of deaths directly related to the sepsis episode on the general wards and emergency departments. RESULTS: 839 patients were recruited over the two 24-h periods in 2016 and 2017. 521 patients fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. 166 patients (32.4%) with sepsis and 56 patients (17.6%) without sepsis died within 90 days. Out of the 166 sepsis deaths 12 (7.2%) could have been directly related to sepsis, 28 (16.9%) possibly related and 96 (57.8%) were not related to sepsis. Overall AFsepsis was 24.1%. Upon analysis of the 40 deaths likely to be attributable to sepsis, we found that 31 patients (77.5%) had the Clinical Frailty Score ≥ 6, 28 (70%) had existing DNA-CPR order and 17 had limitations of care orders (42.5%).