The perceived value of a geriatrics-surgery co-management program: Perspectives from three surgical specialties.

BACKGROUND: Geriatrics-surgery co-management (GSCM) programs have improved patient outcomes, but little is known about how they change care and whether their value varies by surgical specialty. We aimed to assess GSCM's effects as perceived by Orthopedic Trauma, Trauma, and Neurosurgery clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study utilizing electronic survey and virtual interviews at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, an academic trauma center, in Philadelphia, PA. Participants included physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, and case managers in the aforementioned specialties. Key measures were perspectives on value of GSCM, its facilitators, specialty most appropriate to manage specified medical issues, and factors affecting use. RESULTS: Of 71 eligible clinicians, 45 (63%) completed the survey and 12 (21%) of 56 purposefully sampled for specialty-role diversity were interviewed. Clinicians across specialties valued GSCM highly and similarly for impact on personal management of older adults (grand mean [standard error, SE] = 4.33 [0.24] out of 5; p = 0.80 for specialty means comparisons), patient care (mean [SE] = 4.47 [0.21]; p = 0.27), patient outcomes (mean [SE] = 4.26 [0.22]; p = 0.51), and specialty overall (mean [SE] = 4.55 [0.23]; p = 0.25) but less so for knowledge growth (mean [SE] = 3.47 [0.29]; p = 0.11). Interviewees across specialties reported that value derived from improved understanding of patient history, management of complex medical conditions, goals of care support, communication with families, and patient discharge facilitation. Interviewees also agreed on program facilitators: aligned stakeholders, shared data-driven goals, champion/administrative support, continuity and availability of geriatricians, and thorough communication. Specialties differed on three issues: (1) who should manage some medical concerns; (2) whether GSCM makes their job easier (significantly easier for Orthopedic Trauma: mean [SE] = 4.75 [0.29] vs. Trauma: mean [SE] = 4.01 [0.19]; p = 0.05); and (3) whether GSCM increases coordination difficulty (more for Neurosurgery: mean [SE] = 2.18 [0.0.58] vs. Orthopedic Trauma: mean [SE] = 0.51 [0.42]; p = 0.03 and Trauma: mean [SE] = 0.89 [0.28]; p = 0.07). Orthopedic Trauma had the most positive impression of GSCM overall. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians across diverse surgical specialties valued GSCM. Hospitals considering implementation or expansion of GSCM should attend to identified facilitators and may need to tailor to specialty.

Overview of High Yield Geriatrics Assessment for Clinic and Hospital.

Geriatric assessment is a comprehensive, multifaceted, and interdisciplinary evaluation of medical, socioeconomic, environmental, and functional concerns unique to older adults; it can be focused or broadened according to the needs of the patient and the concerns of clinical providers. Herein, the authors present a high-yield framework that can be used to assess older adult patients across a variety of settings.

Infections in Older Adults: A Case-Based Discussion Series Emphasizing Antibiotic Stewardship.

Introduction: Compared with younger populations, adults 65 years and older are more likely to suffer infection-related morbidity and mortality, experience antibiotic-related adverse events, and acquire multidrug-resistant organisms. We developed a series of case-based discussions that stressed antibiotic stewardship while addressing management of common infections in older adults. Methods: Five 1-hour case-based discussions address recognition, diagnosis, and management of infections common in older adults, including those living in long-term care settings: urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, skin and soft tissue infections, and Clostridium difficile infection. The education was implemented at the skilled nursing centers at 15 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Participants from an array of disciplines completed an educational evaluation for each session as well as a pre- and postcourse knowledge assessment. Results: The number of respondents to the educational evaluation administered following each session ranged from 68 to 108. Learners agreed that each session met its learning objectives (4.80-4.89 on a 5-point Likert scale, 5 = strongly agree) and that they were likely to make changes (2.50-2.89 on a 3-point scale, 3 = highly likely to make changes). The average score on the five-question knowledge assessment increased from 3.6 (72%) to 3.9 (78%, p = .06). Discussion: By stressing recognition of atypical signs and symptoms of infection in older adults, diagnostic tests, and antibiotic stewardship, this series of five case-based discussions enhanced clinical training of learners from several disciplines.