Outpatient geriatric rehabilitation - the structural and process quality of a geriatric mobile service team and a community-based outpatient center

The trial "Outpatient Geriatric Rehabilitation (AMBRA)" has been launched to compare two outpatient rehabilitation models close to their place of residence or at home: a mobile rehabilitation team based at a geriatric hospital department and a community-based outpatient rehabilitation center run by GPs. Primary analyses concerning structural and process quality of the models are presented in this paper. They refer to medical features and factors associated with care which were assessed at the beginning of the rehabilitation procedures and during intervention. The models include 60 patients attended by the mobile rehabilitation team and 76 patients attended by the outpatient rehabilitation centre. The patients are suffering from multiple illnesses and are limited in their daily activities. Both teams co-ordinate interdisciplinary rehabilitation programs with an average of 50 therapeutic units per patient under medical supervision. The programs' focus is on physiotherapy and occupational therapy and, if indicated, on logotherapy. Psychosocial and health promotional offers are hardly integrated into the procedures. The mobile rehabilitation team on average cares for patients with better cognitive functions (Mini-Mental State Examination) but worse abilities to cope in daily life (Barthel index) than the outpatient rehabilitation team. These differences between rehabilitation groups remain significant after multivariate consideration of sociodemographic, morbidity and process factors. However, differences in mobility (Tinetti Test) can be explained by these variables. The future comparison of results of the rehabilitation programs must therefore consider the different baseline levels and determinants between both groups.     

Auf- oder Abbau geriatrischer Versorgungsstrukturen in Deutschland?

The legal survey basis for the hospital statistics of the Statistisches Bundesamt (German Federal Statistical Office) affecting the recording of data starting in the year 2002 has been also adjusted to improve the quality of information on geriatric care structures. The basic hospital statistics data for the year 2003 published in April 2005 report 171 geriatric hospital facilities for in-house treatment and 97 for partial in-house treatment as well as 74 geriatric rehabilitation facilities for inpatient treatment. In an additional internal investigation, another 46 geriatric rehabilitation facilities for outpatient treatment were ascertained for the year 2003. Compared to other, earlier surveys, the Statistisches Bundesamt reports an almost equal number of geriatric care facilities in the hospital sector, but a far lower number of such facilities in the sector of rehabilitation facilities for inpatient treatment, and therefore is highly incomplete. Hence, despite modified recording conditions, the official statistics do not provide a realistic representation of geriatric care structures. Under consideration of these limitations and corresponding corrections, the average geriatric care ratio (inpatient and partial inpatient or out-patient geriatric treatment places in hospitals and rehabilitation facilities per 10,000 persons aged 65 and above) amounted to 10.2 geriatric treatment units in 1997, 12.2 in 2000, and 12.3 in 2003. There were significant differences regarding the total capacity and the shares of different kinds of geriatric care structures in the individual federal states. All in all, that means that the expansion of geriatrics that had taken place until the year 2000 has slowed down significantly over recent years and has largely been limited to demographic adjustments. As far as the relevance of reliable numbers on the existence of geriatric care structures for requirement planning, secondary statistics, and state-related comparative analyses is concerned, the ongoing weaknesses of the hospital statistics must be taken into account when developing corresponding interpretations. They call for examining further improvements of the procedure of recording geriatric facilities for the official statistics. So far, they are no reliable basis for cross-sectional analysis.     

Geriatric assessment programs in the United States. Their growing role and impact

Geriatric assessment programs have become a growing component of the health care delivery system for the elderly in the United States. They generally provide interdisciplinary assessment, treatment planning, case management, and often rehabilitation for frail elderly persons and are especially important for persons suspected of needing long-term institutional care. Their development here stems from long experience with geriatric assessment in the United Kingdom and increasing evidence of their effectiveness in North American settings. Among their demonstrated benefits are better diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning, more appropriate placement decisions with less referral to nursing homes, and improved patient functional status, general well-being, and survival. This article provides, in addition to an overview of geriatric assessment programs and their effectiveness, practical guidelines for their establishment in the hospital setting.     

Geriatric assessment: an overview of its impacts

Geriatric assessment programs of various types have become an increasingly important component of the geriatric health care delivery system in the United States. Such programs provide interdisciplinary assessment, treatment planning, case management, and, often, rehabilitation for frail elderly persons and are especially important for those suspected of needing long-term institutional care. A growing body of literature, summarized in this chapter, documents many proven benefits to health care outcomes. Among these benefits are better diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning, more appropriate placement decisions with less referral to nursing homes, improved patient functional and mental status, prolonged patient survival, and lower overall use of costly institutional care services.     

Toward a Core Curriculum for Interdisciplinary Geriatric Care

This paper describes a core curriculum for interdisciplinary geriatric care that was developed by the faculty of the Hunter/Mount Sinai Geriatric Education Center (GEC). The core curriculum encompasses the knowledge, attitudes and skills held in common by the nine health care disciplines that the GEC faculty represent. Each discipline can use the core as a unified base upon which to develop competencies unique to its own practice role and neccessary for implemntation of an interdisciplinary approach to geriatric care. The core curriculum is a first step in the development of basic, advanced and continuing education programs for interdisciplinary geriatric care.     

Ambulante geriatrische Rehabilitation - Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven

Zusammenfassung Die klinische Geriatrie in Deutschland hat sich in den letzten 10 Jahren deutlich weiterentwickelt, insbesondere im voll- und teilstationären Bereich. Dennoch sind die Pläne, die ebenfalls kurz nach 1990 entstanden und eine Verbesserung der geriatrischen Versorgung im ambulanten Bereich zum Ziel hatten, im selben Zeitraum nicht über das Planungsstadium hinaus gekommen. Im Zusammenhang mit der jetzt anstehenden Einführung eines neuen Entgeltsystems im Krankenhausbereich, das aller Voraussicht nach zu einer Verkürzung der Verweildauer führen wird, wird aber gerade im ambulanten Bereich der Bedarf an zusätzlichen spezifischen Behandlungsmöglichkeiten steigen. Der Artikel zeigt deshalb noch einmal die enge Verzahnung der geriatrischen Versorgungskette auf und diskutiert die Notwendigkeit und die Möglichkeiten der Einbindung und Ausgestaltung einer ambulanten geriatrischen Rehabilitation (AGR), wobei insbesondere auf explizite Unterscheidungsmerkmale zum stationären Bereich, auf Indikationskriterien, Ziele und mögliche Organisationsformen der AGR abgehoben wird. Summary Clinical geriatrics in Germany has evolved remarkably since 1990, when first concepts had been developed for establishing structures and facilities for the ambulatory rehabilitation of geriatric patients. However, achievements during the last 10 years were made only for inpatient geriatrics and geriatric day clinics. Geriatric outpatient rehabilitation (GOR) is still a "missing link" in the networked care for elderly patients in Germany and remains until today in a planning phase. The article is aimed at describing the current organisational status of geriatric rehabilitation in Germany and focuses on the question of where and how to fit in geriatric outpatient rehabilitation. Distinction criteria between the different types of geriatric rehabilitation as well as indications, goals, and organisational aspects of GOR are discussed.     

Geriatrische Versorgungsstrukturen in Deutschland

Background

To cover future needs of specialised geriatric patient-centred care, existing structures need to be developed further.

Materials and methods

Taking into account regional structures of providing care, the Federal Association of Geriatric Medicine in Germany developed the concept of Cross-Border Cooperation in Geriatric Medicine.

Results

This concept combines specific geriatric expertise provided by inpatient health care with specialised networking in ambulatory treatment of elderly with a typical geriatric profile. The objective is to provide geriatric patients with a holistic and specific care and case management that overcomes existing limitations.     

Required competence in geriatrics in the view of the Competence Center for Geriatrics

The geriatric patient is defined by a high specific risk that is taken into account by the special geriatric treatment concept. This risk relates to suffering from the permanent and significant loss of earlier functional independence caused by relatively trivial accessory conditions or other changes to the personal situation or falling in need of or increasing the need for care. It results from the geriatric patient's limited reserve capacities that are caused by physiological age-related limitations of organ and organ system reserves and/or manifested or at least latent functional impairments. A rather narrow definition of the geriatric patient based on this specific risk is a key criterion for the future systematic integration of geriatric care into the health service. In such a definition, use of the age component alone is adequate only from a very old age on. The high-risk group of geriatric patients narrowly defined in such a way also calls for primary medical geriatric case management: from commencement of a treatment throughout its entire course, from therapy to rehabilitation to longterm and outpatient care. This comprises first and foremost an comprehensive geriatric assessment and a treatment oriented primarily towards achieving quality of life and independence, medical treatment control including a systematic risk management system, continuous patient support, even in case of other temporary, specific treatments, the individual use of early rehabilitative treatments and the coordination of secondary treatment initiatives. Positioning geriatrics in the health care system in such a way means that the required skills extend beyond a general knowledge of geriatric medicine. Above all, high generic treatment expertise and experience in geriatric rehabilitation are also needed. Additionally, the guide and support function of the geriatrician demands a willingness to take special medical and ethical responsibility and an abundant ability to integrate and communicate. The education, training and development initiatives for attaining geriatric qualifications must satisfy these requirements. Lasting efficient geriatric care concepts also call for the appropriate skills in primary medical outpatient care.     

Continuous Quality Improvement Principles Used in an Interdisciplinary,Multisite Geriatrics Clerkship

This article describes how Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) principles have been used in the development and support of a Geriatric Medicine Clerkshipb for fourth-year medical students. Among these principles, consumer orientation, repeated evaluation of clerkship components, and improvement through a team approach are central to the basic pedagogy of the course. The clerkship has many educational components including lectures, community agency visits, clinical work in a nursing home, interviews with caregivers, home visits and geriatric rehabilitation assessments. CQI principles set the framework for the evaluation and improvement of all these elements. The incorporation of students, faculty and the other teaching professionals into the CQI process facilitates a teamwork understanding of older patient care, and a commitment to the interdisciplinary teaching of geriatric medicine.     

治疗老年共病患者的重要模式：多学科整合团队

目的 总结老年科住院患者对多学科团队查房的需求及其解决的问题,推广适合我国国情的多学科团队医疗模式.方法 建立多学科整合团队查房的制度和流程,对2011至2012年北京协和医院老年示范病房的住院患者的团队查房情况进行统计,分析团队查房的使用情况.结果 时间段内共收治患者274例,其中65岁以上老年患者198例(72.3%),年龄(75.4±7.0)岁.134例(67.7%)超过65岁的老年患者接受过团队查房.这些患者均有共病,涉及营养问题96例(71.6%),精神心理问题55例(41%),康复医疗52例(38.8%),调整用药13例(9.7%).经过团队医护后,好转出院130例(97.0%),死亡4例(30%).结论 老年住院患者对团队查房有较高需求.多学科整合团队是为老年共病患者提供全方位处理的重要工作模式.     

10 Jahre geriatrische frührehabilitative Komplexbehandlung im DRG-System

Background

Geriatric medicine, as a specialized form of treatment for the elderly, is gaining in importance due to demographic changes. Especially important for geriatric medicine is combining acute care with the need to maintain functionality and participation. This includes prevention of dependency on structured care or chronic disability and handicap by means of rehabilitation.

Methods and materials

Ten years ago, the German DRG system tried to incorporate procedures (e.g., “early rehabilitation in geriatric medicine”) in the hospital reimbursement system. OPS 8-550.x, defined by structural quality, days of treatment, and number of therapeutic interventions, triggers 17 different geriatric DRGs, covering most of the fields of medicine. OPS 8-550.x had been revised continuously to give a clear structure to quality aspects of geriatric procedures. However, OPS 8-550.x is based on proven need of in-hospital treatment. In the last 10 years, no such definition has been produced taking aspects of the German hospital system into account as well as aspects of transparency and benefit in everyday work.

Results

The German DRG system covers just basic reimbursement aspects of geriatric medicine quite well; however, a practicable and patient-oriented definition of “hospital necessity” is still lacking, but is absolutely essential for proper compensation. A further problem concerning geriatric medicine reimbursement in the DRG system is due to the different structures of providing geriatric in-hospital care throughout Germany.     

Wirksamkeit geriatrischer Rehabilitation bei Hochbetagten

Background

Geriatric rehabilitation might be the only way for the very old to maintain their participation in social life, since in many cases self care, everyday skills and basic activities of daily living can only be recovered by an integrative treatment approach using a multiprofessional team setting. At the same time limited financial resources in health care have to be considered to make appropriate allocation decisions in geriatric rehabilitation.

Purpose

The goal of this work was to determine whether chronological age is a limiting factor for functional outcome in geriatric rehabilitation.

Materials and methods

Data from the state of Baden-Württemberg (KODAS data set) from the years 2005–2011 for nonagenarians and data for centenarians from the Geriatrics in Bavaria database (GiB-DAT) project from the years 2003–2011 were compared to the data of the younger seniors undergoing geriatric rehabilitation. For the KODAS data collection, 31 geriatric rehabilitation clinics in Baden-Württemberg were involved. The GiB-DAT project included 59 geriatric rehabilitation clinics in Bavaria. Both databases compare the results of the geriatric assessment at the beginning and at the end of geriatric rehabilitation.

Results

The analyzed data are presented with regard to the functional outcome in the very elderly and are discussed with respect to policy implications.     

Montefiore‐Einstein Center for the Aging Brain: Preliminary Data

Given the multifaceted nature of dementia care management, an interdisciplinary comprehensive clinical approach is necessary. We describe our one‐year experience with outpatient based dementia care at the Montefiore‐Einstein Center for the Aging Brain (CAB) involving an multispecialty team of geriatricians, neurologists, and neuropsychologists, supported by geriatric psychiatrists, physiatrists, and social services. The goals of the CAB is to maximize dementia outcomes, including regular monitoring of patient's health and cognition, education and support to patients, their families and caregivers; initiation of pharmacological and non‐pharmacological treatments as appropriate, and the facilitation of access to clinical trials . The CAB follows a consultative model where patients referred to the center receive a comprehensive three step evaluation and management plan from Geriatric, Neuropsychology and Neurology specialists that is shared with patient, caregivers and primary care physicians. Of the 366 patients seen for cognitive complaints in our first year, 71% were women with a mean age of 74 years. Self‐identified ethnicity of patients included Caucasian (26%), African‐American (25%), Hispanic (18%) and multiracial (5%). Common final diagnoses assigned at the CAB included mild cognitive impairment syndromes (31%), Alzheimer's disease (20%), mixed dementia (11%), vascular dementia (9%), Frontotemporal dementia (4%) and dementia with Lewy bodies (4%). Our one‐year progress report indicates that an interdisciplinary clinical dementia care model is feasible in the outpatient setting as well as highly accepted by patients, caregivers and referring physicians.     

Post-geriatric evaluation unit follow-up: team versus nonteam

Twenty-six matched pairs of elderly male patients who had been evaluated in an outpatient geriatric evaluation unit (GEU) were assigned randomly to be followed in either a geriatrics clinic with an interdisciplinary team or a general medical clinic without an interdisciplinary team. Patients were medically stable and living in the community. At 12 months no difference was found in cognitive, affective, or functional status. Both groups of patients had similar frequencies of hospitalization, community placement, use of community services, and number of deaths. These findings suggest that the major benefit from GEUs may be in the initial assessment and treatment rather than in the subsequent care provided by interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics specialty clinics.     

Geriatric evaluation and management units in the care of the frail elderly cancer patient

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment has been suggested as a possibly useful approach in dealing with frail elderly cancer patients. METHODS: This was a secondary subset analysis from a randomized 2 x 2 factorial trial in 11 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Hospitalized, frail patients at least 65 years old, after stabilization of their acute illness, were randomized to receive care in a geriatric inpatient unit, a geriatric outpatient clinic, both, or neither. The interventions involved core teams that provided geriatric assessment and patient management. We identified 99 patients with a diagnosis of cancer by The International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, excluding all nonmelanoma skin cancers. Outcomes collected at discharge, 6 months, and 1 year after randomization were survival, changes in health-related quality of life (using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form general health survey [SF-36]), activities of daily living, physical performance, health service utilization, and costs. RESULTS: There was no effect on mortality (1-year survival 59.6%). The changes in the SF-36 scores from randomization for emotional limitation, mental health and bodily pain (also sustained at 1 year) on the SF-36 were better for geriatric inpatient care cancer patients at discharge. There was no difference in SF-36 scores between geriatric outpatient and usual outpatient care. Days of hospitalization and overall costs were equivalent for the interventions and usual care over the 1-year study. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that inpatient geriatric assessment and management may be an effective approach to the management of pain and psychological status in the elderly cancer inpatient at no greater length of hospitalization or extra cost than usual care.     

Geriatric interdisciplinary team training program: evaluation results

Geriatric interdisciplinary team training has long been a goal in health education with little progress. In 1997, the John A. Hartford Foundation funded eight programs nationally to create Geriatric Interdisciplinary Team Training (GITT) programs. Faculty trained 1,341 health professions students. The results of the evaluation, including presentation of new measures developed to assess interdisciplinary knowledge, are presented, and the implications of the program as a model of interdisciplinary education are discussed. Evaluation data from 537 student trainees are presented. At posttest, GITT trainees demonstrated improvement on all measures of attitudinal change, no change on the geriatric care planning measure, and a change in some of the questions on the test of team dynamics that varied by discipline. Changes were greatest for all the attitudinal measures with the self-reported Team Skills Scale indicating the most significant change--a change that is significant across medicine, nursing, and social work trainees.     

Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE): a new model of primary care for low-income seniors

The majority of older adults receive health care in primary care settings, yet many fail to receive the recommended standard of care for preventive services, chronic disease management, and geriatric syndromes. The Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) model of primary care for low-income seniors and their primary care physicians (PCPs) was developed to improve the quality of geriatric care so as to optimize health and functional status, decrease excess healthcare use, and prevent long-term nursing home placement. The catalyst for the GRACE intervention is the GRACE support team, consisting of a nurse practitioner and a social worker. Upon enrollment, the GRACE support team meets with the patient in the home to conduct an initial comprehensive geriatric assessment. The support team then meets with the larger GRACE interdisciplinary team (including a geriatrician, pharmacist, physical therapist, mental health social worker, and community-based services liaison) to develop an individualized care plan including activation of GRACE protocols for evaluating and managing common geriatric conditions. The GRACE support team then meets with the patient's PCP to discuss and modify the plan. Collaborating with the PCP, and consistent with the patient's goals, the support team then implements the plan. With the support of an electronic medical record and longitudinal tracking system, the GRACE support team provides ongoing care management and coordination of care across multiple geriatric syndromes, providers, and sites of care. The effectiveness of the GRACE intervention is being evaluated in a randomized, controlled trial.     

An acute inpatient geriatric assessment and treatment unit

The inpatient geriatric assessment unit (GAU) is an important component of the Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Centre (GATC) at the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, British Columbia. The Centre attempts to accomplish the following: to provide, at the request of the attending physician, diagnostic, treatment, and management services where it best suits the patient (ie, at home, in the outpatient service, or following admission to the ward); and to provide, if necessary, follow-up service after discharge to help prevent readmission to the acute hospital or any part of the geriatric service.     

Welche Versorgungsstrukturen werden für ältere Patienten mit rheumatischen Erkrankungen benötigt?

In the coming years the number of elderly patients with rheumatic diseases in Germany will continuously increase. Therefore, it is necessary that the structures of the healthcare system for elderly patients with rheumatic diseases are prepared for this challenge. Two important fields are of particular relevance: multimorbidity and the prevention of disability. Both points do not only affect elderly patients but are particularly important in this group. In order to solve the problems structures which facilitate interdisciplinary care should be supported. Moreover, institutions which provide rehabilitation should be utilized for the care of elderly patients with rheumatic diseases. Both can be performed in either outpatient or inpatient settings. Rheumatologists working in interdisciplinary fields, in outpatient practices, and in specialized rheumatology hospitals have key functions in the care of elderly patients with rheumatic diseases. However, practices and hospitals both have to solve the special problems of reimbursement and interfaces between the sectors.