Perspectives and experiences of the first geriatricians trained in Canada.

Many Canadian-trained geriatricians from the subspecialty's first decade of existence continue to practice today. The objective of this study was to examine the experiences and perspectives of the earliest cohort of geriatricians in Canada. Using qualitative description method, we conducted semi-structured interviews to explore participants' experiences in training and practice. We included geriatricians who trained in Canada between 1980-1989 and were in active clinical practice as of October 2021. Each transcript was coded independently by two investigators. Thematic analysis was used to develop key themes. Fourteen participants (43% female, mean years in practice 35.9) described their choice to enter geriatric medicine, their training process, the roles of a geriatrician, challenges facing the profession and advice for trainees. Two themes were developed from the data: (i) advocacy for the older adult and (ii) geriatrics as "the road less taken". Advocacy was described as the "core mission" of a geriatrician. Participants discussed the importance of advocacy in clinical practice, education, research and disseminating geriatric principles in the health system and society. "The road less taken" reflected the challenges participants faced during training, which led to relatively few geriatricians for the growing number of older adults in Canada. Despite these challenges, participants described rewarding careers and encouraged trainees to consider the profession.

Does type of funding affect reporting in network meta-analysis? A scoping review of network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that private industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are more likely to report intervention-favourable results compared with other sources of funding. However, this has not been assessed in network meta-analyses (NMAs). OBJECTIVES: To (a) explore the recommendation rate of industry-sponsored NMAs on their company's intervention, and (b) assess reporting in NMAs of pharmacologic interventions according to their funding type. METHODS: Design: Scoping review of published NMAs with RCTs. INFORMATION SOURCES: We used a pre-existing NMA database including 1,144 articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published between January 2013 and July 2018. STUDY SELECTION: NMAs with transparent funding information and comparing pharmacologic interventions with/without placebo. SYNTHESIS: We captured whether NMAs recommended their own or another company's intervention, classified NMAs according to their primary outcome findings (i.e., statistical significance and direction of effect), and according to the overall reported conclusion. We assessed reporting using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to NMA (PRISMA-NMA) 32-item checklist. We matched and compared industry with non-industry NMAs having the same research question, disease, primary outcome, and pharmacologic intervention against placebo/control. RESULTS: We retrieved 658 NMAs, which reported a median of 23 items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist (interquartile range [IQR]: 21-26). NMAs were categorized as 314 publicly-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 24.5, IQR 22-27), 208 non-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 23, IQR 20-25), and 136 industry/mixed-sponsored NMAs (PRISMA-NMA median 21, IQR 19-24). Most industry-sponsored NMAs recommended their own manufactured drug (92%), suggested a statistically significant positive treatment-effect for their drug (82%), and reported an overall positive conclusion (92%). Our matched NMAs (25 industry vs 25 non-industry) indicated that industry-sponsored NMAs had favourable conclusions more often (100% vs 80%) and were associated with larger (but not statistically significantly different) efficacy effect sizes (in 61% of NMAs) compared with non-industry-sponsored NMAs. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in completeness of reporting and author characteristics were apparent among NMAs with different types of funding. Publicly-sponsored NMAs had the best reporting and published their findings in higher impact-factor journals. Knowledge users should be mindful of this potential funding bias in NMAs.

Characteristics, treatment and delirium incidence of older adults hospitalized with COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected older adults disproportionately, and delirium is a concerning consequence; however, the relationship between delirium and corticosteroid use is uncertain. The objective of the present study was to describe patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among older adults hospitalized with COVID-19, with a focus on dexamethasone use and delirium incidence. METHODS: We completed this retrospective cohort study at 7 sites (including acute care, rehabilitation and long-term care settings) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We included adults aged 65 years or older, consecutively hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, between Mar. 11, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2021. We abstracted patient characteristics and outcomes from charts and analyzed them descriptively. We used a logistic regression model to determine the association between dexamethasone use and delirium incidence. RESULTS: During the study period, 927 patients were admitted to the acute care hospitals with COVID-19. Patients' median age was 79.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 72.0-87.0), and 417 (45.0%) were female. Most patients were frail (61.9%), based on a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 5 or greater. The prevalence of delirium was 53.6%, and the incidence was 33.1%. Use of restraints was documented in 20.4% of patients. In rehabilitation and long-term care settings (n = 115), patients' median age was 86.0 years (IQR 78.5-91.0), 72 (62.6%) were female and delirium occurred in 17 patients (14.8%). In patients admitted to acute care during wave 2 of the pandemic (Aug. 1, 2020, to Feb. 20, 2021), dexamethasone use had a nonsignificant association with delirium incidence (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 0.77-2.50). Overall, in-hospital death occurred in 262 (28.4%) patients in acute care settings and 28 (24.3%) patients in rehabilitation or long-term care settings. INTERPRETATION: In-hospital death, delirium and use of restraints were common in older adults admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Further research should be directed to improving the quality of care for this population with known vulnerabilities during continued waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19 during three waves: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Background: The waves of COVID-19 infections in Ontario, Canada, were marked by differences in patient characteristics and treatment. Our objectives were to (i) describe patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of hospitalized older adults with COVID-19 between waves 1, 2, and 3, (ii) determine if there was an improvement in in-hospital mortality in waves 2 and 3 after adjusting for covariates. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was done in five acute care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Consecutive hospitalized older adults aged ≥65 years with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included. Wave 1 extended from March 11 to July 31, 2020, wave 2 from August 1, 2020 to February 20, 2021, and wave 3 from February 21 to June 30, 2021. Patient characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from charts. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association between COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. Results: Of the 1671 patients admitted to acute care, 297 (17.8%) were admitted in wave 1, 751 (44.9%) in wave 2, and 623 (37.3%) in wave 3. The median age of our cohort was 77.0 years (interquartile range: 71.0-85.0) and 775 (46.4%) were female. The prevalence of frailty declined in progressive waves. The use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab was significantly higher in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. In the unadjusted analysis, in-hospital mortality was unchanged between waves 1 and 2, but it was lower in wave 3 (18.3% vs. 27.4% in wave 1). After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was unchanged in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. Conclusion: In-hospital mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19 was similar between waves 1 and 3. Further research should be done to determine if COVID-19 therapies have similar benefits for older adults compared with younger adults.

Implementation of a multicomponent intervention sign to reduce delirium in orthopaedic inpatients (MIND-ORIENT): a quality improvement project.

Delirium is a serious and common condition that leads to significant adverse health outcomes for hospitalised older adults. It occurs in 30%-55% of patients with hip fractures and is one of the most common postoperative complications in older adults undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions can reduce delirium incidence by up to 30% but are often challenging to implement as part of routine care. We identified a gap in the delivery of non-pharmacological interventions on an orthopaedic unit. This project aimed to implement a bedside sign on an orthopaedic unit to reduce the occurrence of delirium by prompting staff to use multicomponent evidence-based delirium prevention strategies for at-risk older adults. Quality improvement methods were used to integrate and optimise the use of a bedside 'delirium prevention' sign on an orthopaedic unit.The sign was implemented in four target rooms and sign completion rates increased from 47% to 83% (95% CI 71.7% to 94.9%; p<0.001) over a 10-month period. The sign did not have a significant impact on delirium prevalence. The mean Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)+ rate during the baseline period was 8% with an absolute increase in the intervention period to 11.4% (95% CI 7.2% to 15.8%; p=0.31). There were no significant shifts or trends in the run chart for the proportion of patients with CAM+ scores over time. The sign was well received by staff, who reported it was a worthwhile use of time and prompted use of non-pharmacological interventions. This quality improvement project successfully integrated a novel, low-cost, feasible and evidence-based approach into routine clinical care to support staff to deliver non-pharmacological interventions. Given the increased pressures on front-line staff in hospital, tools that reduce cognitive load at the bedside are important to consider when caring for a vulnerable older adult patient population.

Thiamine versus placebo in older heart failure patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled crossover feasibility trial (THIAMINE-HF).

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a major cardiovascular disease with increasing prevalence. Thiamine deficiency occurs in 33% of patients with HF. However, the effectiveness of thiamine supplementation in HF is not known. METHODS: In a placebo-controlled randomized two-period crossover feasibility trial, patients age ≥ 60 years with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, EF ≤ 45%) will be randomized to thiamine 500 mg oral capsule once daily or placebo for 3 months, then crossed over to the other intervention after a 6-week washout period. The primary outcome is recruitment rate. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and clinical measures. Feasibility outcomes include refusal rate, retention rate, and compliance rate. Secondary clinical outcomes include left ventricular ejection fraction, peak global longitudinal strain measured by echocardiography, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) quality of life score, and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and HF emergency room visits). DISCUSSION: Thiamine is potentially a safe and low-cost treatment for older patients with HFrEF. Results from this study will inform the feasibility of a large clinical trial with clinical endpoints. The findings will be published in a peer review journal and presented at a relevant conference. This study has received full approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (18-4537) and Health Canada (210603). This trial is funded by the Hamilton Health Sciences New Investigator Grant (15-387) and the McMaster/St. Peter's Hospital Chair of Aging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03228030 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered July 24, 2017.

Nursing perspectives on the confusion assessment method: a qualitative focus group study.

Background: the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is commonly used to detect delirium. Although accurate when administered by trained researchers, its sensitivity is low when performed by nurses in clinical practice. We aimed to understand the perspectives of nurses who used the CAM on orthopaedic wards. Design: qualitative focus group study. Setting: two academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Participants: forty-three nurses who worked on orthopaedic inpatient units and used the CAM daily participated in one of eight focus group sessions. Measurements: structured focus groups explored nurses' perception of delirium and the use of the CAM. Each transcript was coded and sampling continued until theme saturation. Results: the participants (84% female, mean age 40 years, mean years in practice 12.8) had mixed feelings about the CAM. Some nurses praised its simplicity, while others preferred a narrative description of the delirium episode. Only 35% recalled receiving training to administer the CAM. Across the groups, disorientation was inappropriately used to evaluate level of consciousness and inattention. Objective testing was reportedly rarely used for assessing inattention. Most nurses retrospectively completed the CAM at the end of their shift by extrapolating from earlier observations rather than formally administering the tool. Reported challenges included differentiating delirium from dementia, assessing non-verbal patients and those with language barriers, time constraints, discrepancy with physicians' assessments and pressure to diagnose delirium. Conclusion: despite its widespread use, the CAM was poorly understood by orthopaedic nurses at two academic institutions. The CAM may be difficult to implement in practice.