Decision-making capacity in older medical in-patients: frequency of assessment and rates of incapacity by decision-type and underlying brain/mind impairment.

BACKGROUND: Hospital clinicians find mental capacity assessment challenging and may lack the necessary skills. Given high rates of cognitive impairment, data on mental capacity assessment in real-world hospital cohorts are required to inform the need for staff training and workforce planning. OBJECTIVES: In unselected medical inpatients, we determined the rate and outcome of mental capacity assessment by decision type and underlying brain/mind disorder, and recorded the discipline of the assessor. METHODS: We included consecutive patients (October-November 2018; November-December 2019) admitted to the complex medicine unit providing acute multidisciplinary care for multi-morbid patients (age ≥ 16 years, average age > 80 years). Audit data were collected at ward multidisciplinary meetings and extracted from electronic patient records. RESULTS: Among 892 patients (mean/SD age = 82.8/8.6, 465 male), 140 (16%) required mental capacity assessment (40/140 (29%) had ≥2 assessments) with 203 assessments in total of which 162 (80%) were done by doctors. Capacity was deemed lacking in 124 (61%) assessments, most commonly in delirium with/without other co-morbid conditions (94/114, 82%) or dementia (9/12, 75%) with lower rates in other disorders (15/27, 56%), and no formal diagnosis of brain/mind disorder (6/50, 12%). Cognitive test scores were overall lower in those lacking capacity (mean/SD abbreviated-mental-test-score = 5.2/2.6, range = 0-10 versus 6.8/2.8, P = 0.001, range = 1-10). Decisions involving discharge planning were most often assessed (48%) followed by treatment (29%), discharge against medical advice (12%) and others (11%). CONCLUSION: Mental capacity assessments were performed frequently and often repeated, justifying the need for robust training in the practical application of the principles of capacity assessment for staff managing complex older patients.

Prevalence and outcomes of frailty in unplanned hospital admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hospital-wide and general (internal) medicine cohorts.

Background: Guidelines recommend routine frailty screening for all hospitalised older adults to inform care decisions, based mainly on studies in elective or speciality-specific settings. However, most hospital bed days are accounted for by acute non-elective admissions, in which the prevalence and prognostic value of frailty might differ, and uptake of screening is limited. We therefore did a systematic review and meta-analysis of frailty prevalence and outcomes in unplanned hospital admissions. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to 31/01/2023 and included observational studies using validated frailty measures in adult hospital-wide or general medicine admissions. Summary data on the prevalence of frailty and associated outcomes, measurement tools, study setting (hospital-wide vs general medicine), and design (prospective vs retrospective) were extracted and risk of bias assessed (modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklists). Unadjusted relative risks (RR; moderate/severe frailty vs no/mild) for mortality (within one year), length of stay (LOS), discharge destination and readmission were calculated and pooled, where appropriate, using random-effects models. PROSPERO CRD42021235663. Findings: Among 45 cohorts (median/SD age = 80/5 years; n = 39,041,266 admissions, n = 22 measurement tools) moderate/severe frailty ranged from 14.3% to 79.6% overall (and in the 26 cohorts with low-moderate risk of bias) with considerable heterogeneity between studies (phet < 0.001) preventing pooling of results but with rates <25% in only 3 cohorts. Moderate/severe vs no/mild frailty was associated with increased mortality (n = 19 cohorts; RR range = 1.08-3.70), more consistently among cohorts using clinically administered tools (n = 11; RR range = 1.63-3.70; phet = 0.08; pooled RR = 2.53, 95% CI = 2.15-2.97) vs cohorts using (retrospective) administrative coding data (n = 8; RR range = 1.08-3.02; phet < 0.001). Clinically administered tools also predicted increasing mortality across the full range of frailty severity in each of the six cohorts that allowed ordinal analysis (all p < 0.05). Moderate/severe vs no/mild frailty was also associated with a LOS >8 days (RR range = 2.14-3.04; n = 6) and discharge to a location other than home (RR range = 1.97-2.82; n = 4) but was inconsistently related to 30-day readmission (RR range = 0.83-1.94; n = 12). Associations remained clinically significant after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidity where reported. Interpretation: Frailty is common in older patients with acute, non-elective hospital admission and remains predictive of mortality, LOS and discharge home with more severe frailty associated with greater risk, justifying more widespread implementation of screening using clinically administered tools. Funding: None.