Screening, Diagnosis and Management of Sarcopenia and Frailty in Hospitalized Older Adults: Recommendations from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR) Expert Working Group.

Sarcopenia and frailty are highly prevalent conditions in older hospitalized patients, which are associated with a myriad of adverse clinical outcomes. This paper, prepared by a multidisciplinary expert working group from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR), provides an up-to-date overview of current evidence and recommendations based on a narrative review of the literature for the screening, diagnosis, and management of sarcopenia and frailty in older patients within the hospital setting. It also includes suggestions on potential pathways to implement change to encourage widespread adoption of these evidence-informed recommendations within hospital settings. The expert working group concluded there was insufficient evidence to support any specific screening tool for sarcopenia and recommends an assessment of probable sarcopenia/sarcopenia using established criteria for all older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients or in younger patients with conditions (e.g., comorbidities) that may increase their risk of sarcopenia. Diagnosis of probable sarcopenia should be based on an assessment of low muscle strength (grip strength or five times sit-to-stand) with sarcopenia diagnosis including low muscle mass quantified from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis or in the absence of diagnostic devices, calf circumference as a proxy measure. Severe sarcopenia is represented by the addition of impaired physical performance (slow gait speed). All patients with probable sarcopenia or sarcopenia should be investigated for causes (e.g., chronic/acute disease or malnutrition), and treated accordingly. For frailty, it is recommended that all hospitalized patients aged 70 years and older be screened using a validated tool [Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Hospital Frailty Risk Score, the FRAIL scale or the Frailty Index]. Patients screened as positive for frailty should undergo further clinical assessment using the Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index or information collected from a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). All patients identified as frail should receive follow up by a health practitioner(s) for an individualized care plan. To treat older hospitalized patients with probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia, or frailty, it is recommended that a structured and supervised multi-component exercise program incorporating elements of resistance (muscle strengthening), challenging balance, and functional mobility training be prescribed as early as possible combined with nutritional support to optimize energy and protein intake and correct any deficiencies. There is insufficient evidence to recommend pharmacological agents for the treatment of sarcopenia or frailty. Finally, to facilitate integration of these recommendations into hospital settings organization-wide approaches are needed, with the Spread and Sustain framework recommended to facilitate organizational culture change, with the help of 'champions' to drive these changes. A multidisciplinary team approach incorporating awareness and education initiatives for healthcare professionals is recommended to ensure that screening, diagnosis and management approaches for sarcopenia and frailty are embedded and sustained within hospital settings. Finally, patients and caregivers' education should be integrated into the care pathway to facilitate adherence to prescribed management approaches for sarcopenia and frailty.

Defining sarcopenia: the impact of different diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of sarcopenia in a large middle aged cohort.

Sarcopenia, low muscle mass, is an increasing problem in our ageing society. The prevalence of sarcopenia varies extremely between elderly cohorts ranging from 7% to over 50%. Without consensus on the definition of sarcopenia, a variety of diagnostic criteria are being used. We assessed the degree of agreement between seven different diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia based on muscle mass and handgrip strength, described in literature. In this cross-sectional study, we included men (n=0325) and women (n=0329) with complete measurements of handgrip strength and body composition values as measured by bioimpedance analysis within the Leiden Longevity Study. Prevalence of sarcopenia was stratified by gender and age. In men (mean age 64.5 years), the prevalence of sarcopenia with the different diagnostic criteria ranged from 0% to 20.8% in the lowest age category (below 60 years), from 0%to 31.2% in the middle (60 to 69 years) and from 0% to 45.2% in the highest age category (above 70 years). In women (mean age 61.8 years), the prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 0% to 15.6%, 0% to 21.8% and 0% to 25.8% in the lowest, middle and highest age category, respectively. Only one participant (0.2%) was identified having sarcopenia according to all diagnostic criteria that marked prevalence above 0%. We conclude that the prevalence of sarcopenia is highly dependent on the applied diagnostic criteria. It is necessary to reach a consensus on the definition of sarcopenia in order to make studies comparable and for implementation in clinical care.

Practical guidelines for the acute emergency sedation of the severely agitated older patient.

The vulnerability of older people to serious underlying medical illness and adverse effects of psychotropics means that the safe and effective treatment of severe agitation can be lifesaving, the primary management goals being to create a safe environment for the patient and others, and to facilitate assessment and treatment. We review the literature on acute sedation and provide practical guidelines for the management of this problem addressing a range of issues, including aetiology, assessment, pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies, restraint and consent. The assessment of the agitated older patient must include concurrent assessment of the likely aetiology of, the risks posed by, and the risks/benefits of management options for, the agitation. A range of environmental modifications and non-pharmacological strategies might be implemented to maximize the safety of the patient and others. Physical restraints should only be considered after appropriate assessment and trial of alternative management and if the risk of restraint is less than the risk of the behaviour. Limited evidence supports a range of pharmacological options from traditional antipsychotics to atypical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. It is advised to start low and go slow, using small increments of dose increase. Medical staff are frequently called to sedate agitated older patients in hospital settings, often after hours, with limited access to relevant medical information and history. Safe and effective management necessitates adequate assessment of the aetiology of the agitation, exhausting all non-pharmacological strategies, and resorting to pharmacological and/or physical restraint only when necessary, judiciously and for a short-term period, with frequent review and the obtaining of consent as soon as possible.

ICF participation restriction is common in frail, community-dwelling older people: an observational cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent of participation restriction in a sample of frail older people, and to identify the domains of participation that are most restricted. A secondary aim was to determine which health and demographic factors were associated with participation restriction. DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Adults recently discharged from an aged care and rehabilitation service in Australia who were enrolled in a clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eighty-one community-dwelling adults aged over 70 years (mean age 84, standard deviation 5.7) who met the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria for frailty, had a Mini Mental State Examination score over 18 and a predicted life expectancy exceeding 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation restriction was evaluated using the Reintegration to Normal Living Index. RESULTS: Eighty percent of subjects reported participation restriction in at least one aspect of their life. Restricted participation was most prevalent in the areas of work in the home or community (114/181, 63%) and community mobility (92/181, 51%), and least common with regard to interpersonal relationships (9/181, 5%). Multivariate regression analysis showed that grip strength, mood, number of medical conditions and mobility were independently and significantly (P<0.05) associated with participation restriction, and explained 29% of the variance in participation restriction. Cognition and living alone were not significantly associated with participation restriction. CONCLUSIONS: Participation restriction was common in this sample of frail, community-dwelling older people. It was associated with factors from multiple levels of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Further research is suggested to investigate the causes and treatment of participation restriction.

Increasing adherence with the use of hip protectors for older people living in the community.

UNLABELLED: For people at high risk of hip fracture living in community settings, providing hip protectors at no cost increased adherence, but the additional effect of an educational programme was limited. Overall, the level of adherence was modest. INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to increase adherence with hip protector use by older people at high risk of hip fracture. The study included two randomised controlled trials with 308 older people recruited from three hospital rehabilitation wards and 171 older people recruited from the community. METHODS: Participants were randomised into three groups. The control group received a brochure about hip protectors. The no cost group were fitted with free hip protectors and asked to use them. The combined group received free hip protectors and education sessions about their use. Adherence with the use of hip protectors at 3 and 6 months after recruitment was measured. Secondary outcomes were falls, fractures and hospitalisations. RESULTS: Very few participants in the two control groups bought a hip protector. Overall adherence in the four intervention groups was modest, but higher in the community recruitment setting (49%) than in the hospital recruitment setting (36%) at 6 months. In the community recruitment group, at 3 months of follow-up, a significantly higher number of participants in the combined group (62%) were wearing hip protectors compared to the no cost group (43%, p=0.04). Five hip fractures occurred during the study, with four sustained whilst not wearing the hip protectors. CONCLUSION: Providing hip protectors at no cost to community living older people at high risk of hip fractures modestly increases initial acceptance and adherence with hip protector use. Additional education may further increase hip protector use in people living in the community in the short term.

Availability and use of hip protectors in residents of nursing homes.

SUMMARY: Potential predictors of availability and use of hip protectors were studied in residents of 48 nursing homes. The likelihood of being offered a hip protector was reduced in men, in residents with very low or very high care needs, in residents with migration background, and in recipients of welfare aid. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to analyze potential predictors of availability and use of hip protectors in residents of nursing homes. METHODS: In 48 German nursing homes, individual information on availability and use of hip protectors was collected from all institutionalized residents (3,924 residents; 78.2% women). Information on nursing home characteristics was obtained by telephone interview. The effect of individual variables and of nursing home characteristics on hip protector availability and use was estimated using multilevel logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of hip protectors being made available was 10.0% in women and 6.2% in men. Sixty-four percent of those with a hip protector used it during the 4 weeks prior to the examination. The likelihood of being offered a hip protector was reduced in men (odds ratio (OR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43; 0.83), in residents with very low or very high care needs (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18; 0.56 and OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38; 0.79, respectively), in residents with a migration background (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09; 0.99), and in recipients of welfare aid (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44; 0.81). Nursing home characteristics such as the size of the nursing home or staff participation rate in training measures had no effect on hip protector availability and use. CONCLUSION: Predictors of hip protector availability were sex, the degree of care need, migration status, and welfare aid. The lower availability of hip protectors in residents with welfare aid and migration status may be an indicator for health inequality in the German health system.

Excess mortality after pelvic fractures in institutionalized older people.

UNLABELLED: Mortality after pelvic fracture was calculated in residents of nursing homes. Compared with a matched comparison nonfracture group, excess mortality was found during the first 2 months after pelvic fracture. INTRODUCTION: Low energy pelvic fractures are mainly observed in people of advanced older age. The incidence of these fractures has increased considerably during the last decades. Information about excess mortality after pelvic fractures in older people is not available. METHODS: To calculate excess mortality, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. Data from residents institutionalized in Bavarian nursing homes between 2001 and 2006 were used. For each patient with a pelvic fracture (n=1,154), five residents without pelvic fracture (n=5,770) were matched by sex, age, date of admission to the nursing home, and level of care (measure for the need of care). Hazard regression models were applied. RESULTS: An excess mortality was found during the first months after pelvic fracture. In women, the increased mortality risk was limited to the first (hazard rate ratio (HR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-2.37) and second (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.13-2.04) months after the injury. In men, excess mortality was more pronounced (HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.57-5.54 for the first month) and appeared to last longer than in women. The majority of deaths due to pelvic fractures in the first 2 months after injury occurred following discharge from the hospital to the nursing home. CONCLUSION: Pelvic fractures are associated with an increased mortality. These results should encourage the development of preventive measures to reduce this excess mortality.

Adherence with hip protectors: a proposal for standardised definitions.

Definitions of adherence, also termed compliance, with use of hip protectors have varied in published studies, making interpretation of results difficult. This paper proposes standard definitions of adherence with the use of hip protectors. Adherence is the wearing of hip protectors in accordance with the recommendations of the study protocol, and is measured as the amount of time hip protectors are worn. When reporting use of hip protectors in clinical trials investigators should indicate the specific definition of adherence used, explicitly state the recommendation that was made for use of hip protectors during the study, and describe the methods of recording adherence.

A randomised trial of hip protector use by frail older women living in their own homes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of hip protectors in frail community living older women. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Aged care health services in New South Wales, Australia. PATIENTS: 600 women 74 years of age or more (mean age 83 years), who had two or more falls or one fall requiring hospital admission in the previous year, and who lived in their own homes. INTERVENTION: Use of hip protectors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence with use of hip protectors, falls, incidence of hip fracture, and adverse effects of use of hip protectors. RESULTS: Adherence was approximately 53% over the duration of the study and hip protectors were worn at the time of 51% of falls in the intervention group. The risk of hip fracture when falling while wearing hip protectors, compared with a fall with no hip protectors in place, was significantly reduced (relative risk (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.67). On an intention to treat analysis, 21 and 22 hip fractures occurred in the intervention and control groups respectively (adjusted RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.68). Three users of hip protectors sustained a hip fracture while wearing properly applied protectors, while 16 hip protector users (5%) developed minor local complications. CONCLUSIONS: Hip protectors prevent hip fractures in community dwelling older women if worn at the time of a fall. The overall effectiveness of hip protectors was not established in this study, because of incomplete adherence with use of the protectors, and limited statistical power.

Hip protectors in aged-care facilities: a randomized trial of use by individual higher-risk residents.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of use of external hip protectors on occurrence of hip fracture. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial, with randomization at the individual level. SETTING: residential aged-care facilities in urban areas of New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 174 women, aged 75 years and older, who had had two or more falls or one fall requiring hospital admission in the previous 3 months, and who lived in hostels or nursing homes. Eighty-six subjects were in the intervention group and 88 in the control group. INTERVENTION: Use of external hip protectors and encouragement by nurses to use the protectors. MEASUREMENTS: Follow-up visits at approximately 2 weeks and 2, 10 and 18 months to determine falls and fall injury (including hip fracture); we also measured adherence to hip protector use. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 85; they lived in 32 different aged-care facilities, two-thirds of which were nursing homes. Intervention and control groups had similar baseline characteristics, with a mean Barthel index of 58 at enrollment and a mean Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire score of six errors, indicating severe disability and major cognitive impairment. During follow-up, a mean of 4.6 falls per person occurred. There was no difference in mortality, with 28 deaths in each group. Eight hip fractures occurred in the intervention group and seven in the control group (hazard ratio 1.46; 95% confidence interval 0.53-4.51). No hip fractures occurred when hip protectors were being worn as directed. Adherence was about 57% over the duration of the study and hip protectors were worn at the time of 54% of falls in the intervention group. Adherence varied markedly between institutions, but the greatest was about 80%. CONCLUSION: Hip protectors were not effective in reducing the incidence of hip fractures in this study, but because of low statistical power, a reduction in risk of hip fracture of up to 50% may not have been detected. There was limited adherence with their use, resulting in a large number of falls occurring without hip protectors in place. All hip fractures in the intervention group occurred when hip protectors were not being used.

The impact of domestic violence on individuals.

There is extensive evidence of the adverse effects of domestic violence across all age groups and cultural backgrounds. The impact of domestic violence may be long-term, affecting emotional adjustment, physical health and subsequent relationships. Health professionals should be aware of the confounding effect of youth, age and cultural diversity on presentation. Shame and isolation militate against disclosure. Specific, sensitive questioning that incorporates awareness of cultural and social issues is essential to detect domestic violence and initiate appropriate assistance.

Hip protectors improve falls self-efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of use of external hip protectors on subjects' fear of falling and falls self-efficacy (belief in their own ability to avoid falling). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Aged-care health services in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 131 women aged 75 years or older, who had two or more falls or one fall requiring hospital admission in the previous year and who live at home. Sixty-one subjects were in the intervention group and 70 in the control group. INTERVENTION: Use of external hip protectors and encouragement to use the protectors by an adherence nurse. MEASUREMENTS: At the time of enrolment into a wider study examining the effect of hip protectors on hip fractures, participants recruited at home completed an assessment of fear of falling and falls efficacy as measured by the Falls Efficacy Scale and the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale. At 4-month follow-up, these scales were readministered by an observer who was not aware of the allocation of the participant to intervention or control groups. RESULTS: Fear of falling and falls self-efficacy, as measured by the Falls Efficacy and Modified Falls Efficacy Scales, were similar at baseline in both groups. Fear of falling was present at follow-up in 43% of subjects using hip protectors and 57% of the control group (chi2 = 2.58, P = 0.11). Hip protector users had greater improvement in falls self-efficacy at follow-up as measured by the Falls Efficacy Scale (t = 2.44, P = 0.016) and the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (t = 2.08, P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Hip protectors improve falls self-efficacy. As users of hip protectors feel more confident that they can complete tasks safely, they may become more physically active and require less assistance with activities of daily living.

Quality of life related to fear of falling and hip fracture in older women: a time trade off study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the utility (preference for health) associated with hip fracture and fear of falling among older women. DESIGN: Quality of life survey with the time trade off technique. The technique derives an estimate of preference for health states by finding the point at which respondents show no preference between a longer but lower quality of life and a shorter time in full health. SETTING: A randomised trial of external hip protectors for older women at risk of hip fracture. PARTICIPANTS: 194 women aged >/= 75 years enrolled in the randomised controlled trial or who were eligible for the trial but refused completed a quality of life interview face to face. OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were asked to rate their own health by using the Euroqol instrument and then rate three health states (fear of falling, a "good" hip fracture, and a "bad" hip fracture) by using time trade off technique. RESULTS: On an interval scale between 0 (death) and 1 (full health), a "bad" hip fracture (which results in admission to a nursing home) was valued at 0.05; a "good" hip fracture (maintaining independent living in the community) 0.31, and fear of falling 0.67. Of women surveyed, 80% would rather be dead (utility=0) than experience the loss of independence and quality of life that results from a bad hip fracture and subsequent admission to a nursing home. The differences in mean utility weights between the trial groups and the refusers were not significant. A test-retest study on 36 women found that the results were reliable with correlation coefficients within classes ranging from 0.61 to 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: Among older women who have exceeded average life expectancy, quality of life is profoundly threatened by falls and hip fractures. Older women place a very high marginal value on their health. Any loss of ability to live independently in the community has a considerable detrimental effect on their quality of life.