Association of Frailty Status on the Causes and Outcomes of Patients Admitted With Cardiovascular Disease.

Data are limited about the contemporary association between frailty and the causes and outcomes of patients admitted with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Using the US National Inpatient Sample, CVD admissions of interest (acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest, and hemorrhagic stroke) were stratified by Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). Logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of in-hospital mortality among different groups with frailty. The study included 9,317,398 hospitalizations. Of these, 5,573,033 (59.8%) had a low HFRS (<5); 3,422,700 (36.7%) had an intermediate HFRS (5 to 15); and 321,665 (3.5%) had a high HFRS (>15). Ischemic stroke was the most common admission for the groups with high risk (75.4%), whereas acute myocardial infarction was the most common admission for the group with low risk (36.9%). Compared with the group with low risk, patients with high risk had increased mortality across the most CVD admissions, except in patients admitted for cardiac arrest and hemorrhagic stroke (p <0.001). The strongest association with all-cause mortality was shown among patients with high risk admitted for AF (aOR 6.75, 95% CI 6.51 to 7.00, and aOR 17.69, 95% CI 16.08 to 19.45) compared with their counterparts with low risk. In conclusion, patients with CVD admissions have varying frailty risk according to cardiovascular cause of admission, with ischemic stroke being the most common among groups with frailty and high risk. Increased frailty is associated with all-cause mortality in patients with most CVD admissions, except for cardiac arrest and hemorrhagic stroke, with the strongest association seen in patients admitted with AF.

Empowering people to help speak up about safety in primary care: Using codesign to involve patients and professionals in developing new interventions for patients with multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more long-term conditions, is increasingly common in primary care, and patients with multimorbidity may face particular barriers to quality of care and increased safety risks due to the complexity of managing multiple conditions. Consistent with calls to directly involve service users in improving care, we aimed to use design materials to codesign new interventions to improve safety in primary care. DESIGN: We drew on two established methods-accelerated experience-based codesign and the future workshop approach. We synthesized design materials based on research into the patient experience of safety and multimorbidity in primary care to enable both patients, service users and carers, and primary health-care professionals to propose interventions to improve care. RESULTS: Both patients and professionals prioritized polypharmacy as a threat to safety. Their recommendations for supportive interventions were consistent with Burden of Treatment theory, emphasizing the limited capacity of patients with multimorbidity and the need for services to proactively offer support to reduce the burden of managing complex treatment regimes. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS: The process was feasible and acceptable to participants, who valued the opportunity to jointly propose new interventions. The iterative workshop approach enabled the research team to better explore and refine the suggestions of attendees. Final recommendations included the need for accessible reminders to support medication adherence and medication reviews for particularly vulnerable patients conducted with pharmacists within GP practices.

Effectiveness of musculoskeletal education interventions in people with low literacy levels: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions delivered or directed by health professionals for people with musculoskeletal conditions who also have lower levels of literacy. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 1946 to May 2012. Randomized controlled trials with primary interventions designed specifically for individuals with musculoskeletal conditions and lower levels of literacy were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the study was determined by assessing method of randomization, allocation concealment, creation and maintenance of comparable groups, blinding of patients and providers, control of confounding, and the validity and reliability of outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 2,440 studies located using the search strategy, 6 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three public health community studies and 3 rheumatology clinic-based studies delivered educational programs to people with musculoskeletal conditions who also had lower levels of literacy. Three moderate quality studies suggest that musculoskeletal educational interventions had a small short-term effect on knowledge and 2 moderate quality studies suggest musculoskeletal interventions had a small effect on self-efficacy (although results on self-efficacy were conflicting in 1 of these studies). Only 1 moderate quality study showed a small effect on anxiety and 1 on self-perceived health and well-being in people with lower literacy. CONCLUSION: High quality evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of musculoskeletal education interventions for people with lower literacy levels. Research programs that test the effectiveness of patient education interventions for arthritis must recruit and engage people with lower levels of literacy.

Matching clinical information with levels of patient health literacy.

Good communication between healthcare professionals and patients is central to therapeutic relationships, and patients need to know how to access, understand and make use of services and information to promote and maintain their health. This article describes how practising effective communication can improve patient care and how nurses, with their central role in patient advocacy, are well placed to become health literacy champions for their patients and the wider NHS.

Quality of care for elderly residents in nursing homes and elderly people living at home: controlled observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of care given to elderly people and compare the care given to residents in nursing homes with those living in their own homes. DESIGN: Controlled observational study. SETTING: Primary care, Bristol. SUBJECTS: Elderly individuals (aged > or =65 years) registered with three general practices, of whom 172 were residents in nursing homes (cases) and 526 lived at home (matched controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of clinical care given to patients was measured against explicit standards. Quality indicators were derived from national sources and agreed with participating general practitioners. RESULTS: The overall standard of care was inadequate when judged against the quality indicators, irrespective of where patients lived. The overall prescribing of beneficial drugs for some conditions was deficient--for example, only 38% (11/29) (95% confidence interval 20% to 58%) of patients were prescribed beta blockers after myocardial infarction. The proportion of patients with heart disease or diabetes who had had their blood pressure measured in the past two years (heart disease) or past year (diabetes) was lower among those living in nursing homes: for heart disease, 74% (17/23) v 96% (122/127) (adjusted odds ratio 0.18, 0.04 to 0.75); for diabetes, 62% (8/13) v 96% (50/52) (adjusted odds ratio 0.05, 0.01 to 0.38). In terms of potentially harmful prescribing, significantly more patients in nursing homes were prescribed neuroleptic medication (28% (49/172) v 11% (56/526) (3.82, 2.37 to 6.17)) and laxatives (39% (67/172) v 16% (85/526) (2.79, 1.79 to 4.36)). Nursing home residents were less likely to have the appropriate diagnostic Read code linked to their prescribed neuroleptic drug (0.22, 0.07 to 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of medical care that elderly patients receive in one UK city, particularly those in nursing homes, is inadequate. We suggest that better coordinated care for these patients would avoid the problems of overuse of unnecessary or harmful drugs, underuse of beneficial drugs, and poor monitoring of chronic disease.