Advertisement

Tijdschrift Gerontologie en Geriatrie

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 260–266 | Cite as

Een screeningsinstrument om de geriatrische liaison in het ziekenhuis op te starten: de Voorlopige Indicator voor Plaatsing (VIP)

  • M. F. J. Vandewoude
  • C. A. M. Geerts
  • A. H. M. d’Hooghe
  • K. M. J. Paridaens
Artikel

samenvatting

The proportional increase of the ageing population results in an ever growing percentage of elderly among hospitalised patients. Older patients have complex medical, social and psychological problems that could benefit from coordinated care or case management. Identification of high–risk older adults is mandatory to initiate a liaison geriatric management program. A simple screening tool is presented to identify older people at the time of admission who are at increased risk of adverse health outcomes. The instrument was validated during a period of 6 months when all (n=618) older adults (> 70 year) hospitalised in non–geriatric departments of a general hospital were screened. This “Variable Indicative of Placement risk” (VIP) shows a good sensitivity (81 %) and specificity (86 %) and has a high Negative Predictive Value (97 %). Furthermore, it shows a significant positive correlation with the length of stay (p < 0.001). The questionnaire turned out to be a very useful tool in the emergency department as well as in other wards because it probes premorbid frailty components with three simple questions. Due to its simplicity a nurse without geriatric training can complete it. Patients who are not at risk of an adverse outcome are easily recognised. A positive score indicates loss of functional independence and a risk of increased length of stay. Further geriatric assessment and intervention seem then appropriate.

Samenvatting

Met de vergrijzing wordt ook de gehospitaliseerde patiëntenpopulatie ouder en fragieler. Hierdoor zullen naast de zuiver medische en somatische problematiek ook psychosociale factoren steeds belangrijker worden. Om deze patiënten adequaat op te vangen is een meer globale en vooral tijdig ingestelde geriatrische aanpak nodig. Dit kan verwezenlijkt worden via een zorgprogramma Geriatrie. Om dit op te starten zijn er echter “triggers” nodig. Om die reden wordt een screeningsinstrument voorgesteld dat gemakkelijk toepasbaar is, ook door paramedici. Het instrument werd gevalideerd op alle (n=618) opgenomen ouderen (> 70 jaar) op de niet geriatrische afdelingen van een algemeen ziekenhuis gedurende 6 maanden. Deze “Voorlopige Indicator voor Plaatsing” (VIP) toont een goede sensitiviteit (81 %) en specificiteit (86 %) en een hoge negatief predictieve waarde (97 %) voor een verhoogde zorgbehoefte die de oorzaak kan zijn van ontslagproblemen. Hij vertoont daarnaast een positieve correlatie met een verlengde ligduur (p < 0.001). Het instrument kan gebruikt worden zowel op de spoedafdeling als op de ziekenhuisafdelingen omdat het zich via anamnese richt naar premorbide frailtyfactoren. Door zijn eenvoud kan het gescoord worden door een verpleegkundige zonder specifieke geriatrische opleiding. Hierdoor worden patiënten met weinig risico gemakkelijk herkend. Een positieve score doet ontslagproblemen en een verlengde ligduur vermoeden. Opstarten van de geriatrische liaisonfunctie lijkt dan aangewezen.

frailty hospitalisatie ligduur ouderen screening 

Notes

Literatuur

  1. Haan MN, Selby JV, Quesenberry CPJ, Schmittdiel JA, Fireman BH, Rice DP. The impact of aging and chronic disease on use of hospital and outpatient services in a large HMO: 1971-1991. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45:667–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chodosh J, Seeman TE, Keeler E, et al. Cognitive decline in high-functioning older persons is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1456–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Walsh EG, Wu B, Mitchell JB, Berkmann LF. Cognitive function and acute care utilization. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:S38–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Young HM. Challenges and solutions for care of frail older adults. Online J Issues Nurs 2003;8:1–25.Google Scholar
  5. Conway J, FitzGerald M. Processes, outcomes and evaluation: challenges to practice development in gerontological nursing. J Clin Nurs 2004;13:121–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer CB, Hyer K, Feldt KS, et al. Frail older patient care by interdisciplinary teams: a primer for generalists. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 2003;24:51–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rockwood K. What would make a definition of frailty successful? Age Ageing 2005;34:432–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005;173:489–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fried LP, Kronmal PA, Newman AB, et al. Risk factors for 5-year mortality in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study. JAMA 1998;279:585–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Rockwood K, Howlett SE, MacKnight C, et al. Prevalence, attributes, and outcomes of fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults: report from the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:1310–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Fortinsky RH, et al. Loss of independence in activities of daily living in older adults hospitalized with medical illnesses: increased vulnerability with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:451–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnes C, Conner D, Legault L, Reznickova N, Harrison-Felix C. Rehabilitation outcomes in cognitively impaired patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities from the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1602–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortinsky RH, Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Landefeld CS. Effects of functional status changes before and during hospitalization on nursing home admission of older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999.Google Scholar
  14. McCusker J, Bellavance F, Cardin S, Trépanier S, Verdon J, Ardman O. Detection of older people at increased risk of adverse health outcomes after an emergency visit: the ISAR screening tool. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999;47:1229–1237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Mion LC, Palmer RM, Anetzberger GJ, Meldon SW. Establishing a case–finding and referral system for at–risk older individuals in the emergency department setting: the SIGNET model. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1379–1386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Meldon SW, Mion LC, Palmer RM, et al. A brief risk–stratification tool to predict repeat emergency department visits and hospitalizations in older patients discharged from the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10(3):224–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Swine C, Cornette P. Fragiliteit. Geriatrie Dagelijkse Praktijk, Ed. Pfizer, 2e Ed., Brussel, Deel 1, 2002;1, 53-59.Google Scholar
  18. Sager MA, Rudberg MA, Jalaluddin M, et al. Hospital admission risk profile (HARP): identifying older patients at risk for functional decline following acute medical illness and hospitalization. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996;44:251–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Winograd CH, Gerety MB, Chung M, Goldstein MK, Dominguez Jr F, Vallone R. Screening for frailty: criteria and predictors of outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:778–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Winograd CH, Lindenberger EC, Chavez CM, Mauricio MP, Shi H, Bloch DA. Identifying hospitalized older patients at varying risk for physical performance decline: a new approach. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:604–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Vandewoude MF. Meten is weten; gissen is missen. Cahier Ouderenzorg, Mechelen: Kluwer Uitgeverij 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Burns A, Lawlor B, Craig S. Assessment Scales in Old Age Psychiatry. London and New York: Martin Dunitz, 2nd Ed. 2004.Google Scholar
  23. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz R, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of Illness in the Aged. The Index of ADL: A standardised Measure of Biological and Psychosocial Function. JAMA 1963;185:914–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawton MP, Brody EM. The Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale. Gerontologist 1969;9:179–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawton MP, Moss M, Fulcomer M, Kleban MH. A research and service–oriented multilevel assessment instrument. J Gerontol 1982;37:91–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. The “Get–up and Go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1986;67:387–389.Google Scholar
  27. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:142–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh P. "Mini–Mental State": a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1975;12:189–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mendiondo MS, Ashford JW, Kryscio RJ, Schmitt FA. Designing a Brief Alzheimer Screen (BAS). J Alzheimers Dis 2003;5(5):391–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. F. J. Vandewoude
    • 1
  • C. A. M. Geerts
  • A. H. M. d’Hooghe
  • K. M. J. Paridaens
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations