Older people's goals of care in relation to frailty status-the COOP-study.

BACKGROUND: Literature relating older people's goals of care to their varying frailty status is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate goals of care in case of acute and/or severe disease in relationship to frailty status among the general older population. METHOD: Older people aged ≥70 in the Netherlands completed a questionnaire. They were divided into three subgroups based on a self-reported Clinical Frailty Scale: fit (CFS 1-3), mildly frail (CFS 4-5) and severely frail (CFS 6-8). Seven goals were graded as unimportant (1-5), somewhat important (6-7) or very important (8-10): extending life, preserving quality of life (QoL), staying independent, relieving symptoms, supporting others, preventing hospital admission and preventing nursing home admission. RESULTS: Of the 1,278 participants (median age 76 years, 63% female), 57% was fit, 32% mildly frail and 12% severely frail. Overall, participants most frequently considered preventing nursing home admission as very important (87%), followed by staying independent (84%) and preserving QoL (83%), and least frequently considered extending life as very important (31%). All frailty subgroups reported similar preferences out of the surveyed goals as the overall study population. However, participants with a higher frailty status attached slightly less importance to each individual goal compared with fit participants (Ptrend-values ≤ 0.037). CONCLUSION: Preferred goals of care are not related to frailty status, while the importance ascribed to individual goals is slightly lower with higher frailty status. Future research should prioritise outcomes related to the shared goals of fit, mildly frail and severely frail older people to improve personalised medicine for older patients.

A study protocol of external validation of eight COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has a large impact worldwide and is known to particularly affect the older population. This paper outlines the protocol for external validation of prognostic models predicting mortality risk after presentation with COVID-19 in the older population. These prognostic models were originally developed in an adult population and will be validated in an older population (≥ 70 years of age) in three healthcare settings: the hospital setting, the primary care setting, and the nursing home setting. METHODS: Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, we identified eight prognostic models predicting the risk of mortality in adults with a COVID-19 infection (five COVID-19 specific models: GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, NEWS2 + model, Xie model, and Wang clinical model and three pre-existing prognostic scores: APACHE-II, CURB65, SOFA). These eight models will be validated in six different cohorts of the Dutch older population (three hospital cohorts, two primary care cohorts, and a nursing home cohort). All prognostic models will be validated in a hospital setting while the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model will be validated in hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. The study will include individuals ≥ 70 years of age with a highly suspected or PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection from March 2020 to December 2020 (and up to December 2021 in a sensitivity analysis). The predictive performance will be evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves for each of the prognostic models in each cohort individually. For prognostic models with indications of miscalibration, an intercept update will be performed after which predictive performance will be re-evaluated. DISCUSSION: Insight into the performance of existing prognostic models in one of the most vulnerable populations clarifies the extent to which tailoring of COVID-19 prognostic models is needed when models are applied to the older population. Such insight will be important for possible future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics.

Delirium in older COVID-19 patients: Evaluating risk factors and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: A high incidence of delirium has been reported in older patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to identify determinants of delirium, including the Clinical Frailty Scale, in hospitalized older patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, we aimed to study the association of delirium independent of frailty with in-hospital outcomes in older COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This study was performed within the framework of the multi-center COVID-OLD cohort study and included patients aged ≥60 years who were admitted to the general ward because of COVID-19 in the Netherlands between February and May 2020. Data were collected on demographics, co-morbidity, disease severity, and geriatric parameters. Prevalence of delirium during hospital admission was recorded based on delirium screening using the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) which was scored three times daily. A DOSS score ≥3 was followed by a delirium assessment by the ward physician In-hospital outcomes included length of stay, discharge destination, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 412 patients were included (median age 76, 58% male). Delirium was present in 82 patients. In multivariable analysis, previous episode of delirium (Odds ratio [OR] 8.9 [95% CI 2.3-33.6] p = 0.001), and pre-existent memory problems (OR 7.6 [95% CI 3.1-22.5] p < 0.001) were associated with increased delirium risk. Clinical Frailty Scale was associated with increased delirium risk (OR 1.63 [95%CI 1.40-1.90] p < 0.001) in univariable analysis, but not in multivariable analysis. Patients who developed delirium had a shorter symptom duration and lower levels of C-reactive protein upon presentation, whereas vital parameters did not differ. Patients who developed a delirium had a longer hospital stay and were more often discharged to a nursing home. Delirium was associated with mortality (OR 2.84 [95% CI1.71-4.72] p < 0.001), but not in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A previous delirium and pre-existent memory problems were associated with delirium risk in COVID-19. Delirium was not an independent predictor of mortality after adjustment for frailty.

Lessons Learned From the COVID-19 Pandemic as Experienced by Older Adults Treated for COVID-19.

Background: In order to provide the best care, the perspective of older COVID-19 patients must be involved in the development of treatment protocols. This study describes the experiences of older adults affected by COVID-19 who recovered in the hospital or at home. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 older adults affected by COVID-19. A content-based thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Nine categories were identified as recurring topics, which were grouped into three major themes. The first theme describes experiences in the first phase of the disease when older adults fell ill. The second theme includes experiences during the illness, ranging from illness severity to participation in decision-making, communication barriers and isolation effects. The final theme covers the recovery course, residual symptoms and social aspects. Conclusion: Older adults treated for COVID-19 experienced a feeling of being in a fast-paced whirlwind and lost total control over the situation. Extra attention should be paid to shared decision making, coordinated information provision and the instalment of a primary contract to the patient. The uncertainty of their situation, isolation measures and fears could result in psychological consequences and hinder rehabilitation in older adults.

Characteristics and outcomes of older patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in the first and second wave of the pandemic in The Netherlands: the COVID-OLD study.

BACKGROUND: as the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progressed diagnostics and treatment changed. OBJECTIVE: to investigate differences in characteristics, disease presentation and outcomes of older hospitalised COVID-19 patients between the first and second pandemic wave in The Netherlands. METHODS: this was a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 16 hospitals in The Netherlands including patients aged ≥ 70 years, hospitalised for COVID-19 in Spring 2020 (first wave) and Autumn 2020 (second wave). Data included Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), disease severity and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Main outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: a total of 1,376 patients in the first wave (median age 78 years, 60% male) and 946 patients in the second wave (median age 79 years, 61% male) were included. There was no relevant difference in presence of comorbidity (median CCI 2) or frailty (median CFS 4). Patients in the second wave were admitted earlier in the disease course (median 6 versus 7 symptomatic days; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was lower in the second wave (38.1% first wave versus 27.0% second wave; P < 0.001). Mortality risk was 40% lower in the second wave compared with the first wave (95% confidence interval: 28-51%) after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics, comorbidity, symptomatic days until admission, disease severity and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: compared with older patients hospitalised in the first COVID-19 wave, patients in the second wave had lower in-hospital mortality, independent of risk factors for mortality.The better prognosis likely reflects earlier diagnosis, the effect of improvement in treatment and is relevant for future guidelines and treatment decisions.

Frailty is associated with in-hospital mortality in older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands: the COVID-OLD study.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, older patients had an increased risk of hospitalisation and death. Reports on the association of frailty with poor outcome have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the independent association between frailty and in-hospital mortality in older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, including all patients aged ≥70 years, who were hospitalised with clinically confirmed COVID-19 between February and May 2020. Data were collected on demographics, co-morbidity, disease severity and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,376 patients were included (median age 78 years (interquartile range 74-84), 60% male). In total, 499 (38%) patients died during hospital admission. Parameters indicating presence of frailty (CFS 6-9) were associated with more co-morbidities, shorter symptom duration upon presentation (median 4 versus 7 days), lower oxygen demand and lower levels of C-reactive protein. In multivariable analyses, the CFS was independently associated with in-hospital mortality: compared with patients with CFS 1-3, patients with CFS 4-5 had a two times higher risk (odds ratio (OR) 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-3.0)) and patients with CFS 6-9 had a three times higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.8 (95% CI 1.8-4.3)). CONCLUSIONS: The in-hospital mortality of older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands was 38%. Frailty was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality, even though COVID-19 patients with frailty presented earlier to the hospital with less severe symptoms.

Why do patients and caregivers seek answers from the Internet and online lung specialists? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Since its launch in 2003, the Dutch Lung Cancer Information Center's (DLIC) website has become increasingly popular. The most popular page of the website is the section "Ask the Physician", where visitors can ask an online lung specialist questions anonymously and receive an answer quickly. Most questions were not only asked by lung cancer patients but also by their informal caregivers. Most questions concerned specific information about lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the reasons why lung cancer patients and caregivers search the Internet for information and ask online lung specialists questions on the DLIC's interactive page, "Ask the Physician", rather than consulting with their own specialist. METHODS: This research consisted of a qualitative study with semistructured telephone interviews about medical information-seeking behavior (eg, information needs, reasons for querying online specialists). The sample comprised 5 lung cancer patients and 20 caregivers who posed a question on the interactive page of the DLIC website. RESULTS: Respondents used the Internet and the DLIC website to look for lung cancer-related information (general/specific to their personal situation) and to cope with cancer. They tried to achieve a better understanding of the information given by their own specialist and wanted to be prepared for the treatment trajectory and disease course. This mode of information supply helped them cope and gave them emotional support. The interactive webpage was also used as a second opinion. The absence of face-to-face contact made respondents feel freer to ask for any kind of information. By being able to pose a question instantly and receiving a relatively quick reply from the online specialist to urgent questions, respondents felt an easing of their anxiety as they did not have to wait until the next consultation with their own specialist. CONCLUSIONS: The DLIC website with its interactive page is a valuable complementary mode of information supply and supportive care for lung cancer patients and caregivers.

Website visitors asking questions online to lung cancer specialists: what do they want to know?

BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Dutch Lung Cancer Information Centre (Longkanker Informatie Centrum) launched a website containing information on lung cancer accessible to anyone. OBJECTIVE: Our study aim was to inventorize the information needs of the visitors of this website by analyzing the questions they asked the lung cancer specialists in the websites interactive section "Ask the Physician". METHODS: The first 2000 questions posted up until May 2006 have been classified by visitors' wish, type of required information, identity, gender, and phase during treatment course. RESULTS: Our results show that 1893 (1158/1893, 61%) of the questions were asked by a loved one/caregiver and (239/1893 13%) by patients. 1 out of 3 questions was asked by a daughter/grand-daughter. Most questions concerned specific information on lung cancer and lung cancer course (817/1893, 43%). The most inquired specific information topics were therapy side effects, diagnostics, general information on lung cancer, and regular therapy. Furthermore, questioners wanted to verify their own doctor's information (122/1893, 6%), a diagnosis (267/1893, 14%), and a prognosis (204/1893, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patients and their caregivers asked the most questions in the interactive website section. The most frequently requested information was more detailed information. These include specific information on lung cancer (regular therapy, diagnostics, and disease symptoms), verification of what the doctor has said, diagnosis, and prognosis. Most of the requested information could have been obtained from treating specialists, indicating that current information supply to lung cancer patients and their caregivers may not be matching their needs sufficiently. The further implementation of an online dialogue with lung cancer specialists might be a solution.

A web site on lung cancer: who are the users and what are they looking for?

PURPOSE: The Dutch Lung Cancer Information Centre launched the Web site www.longkanker.info in November 2003. The purpose of this article is to describe the launching of the Web site, its development, the type of visitors to the Web site, what they were looking for, and whether they found what they requested. METHODS: Supervised by a panel (pulmonologists, patients, communication specialists), a large amount of material about lung cancer has been collected and edited into accessible language by health care providers, and the Web site has been divided into special categories following the different stages that lung cancer patients, relatives, and health care providers go through during the illness. The Web site is updated regularly. Search engines have been used to check the position of the Web site as a "hit." Pulmonologists have been informed about the founding of the Web site, and all lung cancer outpatient clinics in The Netherlands have received posters, folders, and cards to inform their patients. Visitor numbers, page views, and visitor numbers per page view have been registered continuously. Visitor satisfaction polls were placed in the second half of 2004 and the second half of 2005. RESULTS: The Web site appeared as first hit when using search engines immediately after launching it. Half of the visitors came to the Web site via search engines or links found at other sites. The number of visitors started at 4600 in the first month, doubled in the next months, and reached 18,000 per month 2 years after its launch. The number of visited pages increased to 87,000 per month, with an average number of five pages per visitor. Thirty percent of the visitors return within the same month. The most popular pages are interactive pages with the overview of all questions to "ask the doctor" at the top with forum messages, survival figures of all form of lung cancer, and information about the disease. The first satisfaction poll obtained 650 respondents and the second 382. The visitors to the Web site are caregivers (57%), patients (8%), and others (students, people fearing lung cancer). Of the visitors, 895 found what they were looking for, and the satisfaction is the highest among nurses and caregivers (91% and 95%, respectively) and the lowest among physicians and patients (85% and 83%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the number of visitors to the lung cancer Web site, it can be concluded that there is a great need for additional information among patients and caregivers. The launched Web site www.longkanker.info has reached its goal of providing a dependable source of information about lung cancer and satisfying its visitors.

Screening for second primary lung cancer after treatment of laryngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: As a result of smoking, patients who have received curative treatment for laryngeal cancer run a high risk of developing lung cancer. Therefore, these patients enter a screening program that aims to detect lung cancer at an asymptomatic stage. The study evaluated whether screening for lung cancer by means of regular chest x-ray examinations contributed to prolonging survival. STUDY DESIGN: A longitudinal follow-up study was performed to analyze the survival of patients who had received curative treatment for squamous cell laryngeal cancer and developed lung cancer during the follow-up period. METHODS: Patients with lung cancer were divided into two groups: 1) patients with asymptomatic screen-detected lung cancer and 2) patients with complaints indicating lung cancer, whose tumor was detected in the interval between screening examinations by chest x-ray films. RESULTS: In the complete group of patients with laryngeal cancer, no prognostic factors could be identified for developing lung cancer. There was no prolongation of survival in the screen-detected asymptomatic lung cancer patients. The median survival of both groups was 56 months (P =.57). The date of detection of the lung cancer was clearly brought forward by screening; a difference of 8 months was found between the median detection date of the two groups (P <.001). There was no difference in tumor-specific mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Screening by chest x-ray examination to detect lung cancer in an asymptomatic stage after curative treatment for squamous cell laryngeal cancer does not improve survival for patients who develop lung cancer.