Cargando…

Impact of MidMed, a general practitioner-led modified comprehensive geriatric assessment for patients with frailty

INTRODUCTION: the identification and management of frailty occurs mostly in primary care. Several different models of care exist. This study aimed to assess the impact of a new General Practitioner (GP)-led modified Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) on service delivery, healthcare utilisation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Helen E, Anand, Atul, Morrison, Iain, Hurding, Simon, Wild, Sarah H, Mercer, Stewart W, Shenkin, Susan D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10032632/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36947740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad006
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: the identification and management of frailty occurs mostly in primary care. Several different models of care exist. This study aimed to assess the impact of a new General Practitioner (GP)-led modified Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) on service delivery, healthcare utilisation and patient outcomes. METHOD: patients with moderate–severe frailty (electronic Frailty Index score > 0.24) in Newbattle Medical Practice, Scotland, were eligible for a novel intervention (MidMed) in which an additional GP performed a modified CGA and was directly accessible for appointments. The recruits to the intervention (MidMed) group were compared with those waiting to be enrolled (non-MidMed). Outcomes included unscheduled hospital admissions, primary care consultations, continuity of care (Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index), outpatient attendances and mortality. Adjusted rate ratios (aRR), for MidMed compared to non-MidMed, were estimated using regression models adjusting for demographics and healthcare utilisation histories. RESULTS: 510 patients were included: 290 MidMed (mean(SD) age 80.1(7.6)years; 59.6% female) and 220 non-MidMed (75.4(8.6)years; 57.7% female). Median follow-up was 396 days. aRR(95%CI) was 0.46(0.30–0.71) for >1 admission, 0.62(0.41–0.95) >1 Emergency Department (ED) attendance and 1.52(1.30–1.75) for use of primary care, with no difference in outpatient appointments or mortality. Continuity of care was better for the MidMed group (MidMed UPC 0.77(SD 0.19), non-MidMed 0.41(0.18), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: this GP-led service for frail patients was associated with lower risk of hospital readmission/ED reattendance, greater use of primary care and improved continuity of care. More detailed evaluation of novel primary care frailty services, over longer time-periods, including robust randomised controlled trials, are needed.