scholarly journals Multicomponent Frailty Assessment Tools for Older People with Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 1085-1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Sutton ◽  
Rebecca L. Gould ◽  
Mark C. Coulson ◽  
Emma V. Ward ◽  
Aine M. Butler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Frailty Assessment

scholarly journals Practical and validated tool to assess falls risk in the primary care setting: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e045431
Author(s):  
Wytske MA Meekes ◽  
Joke C Korevaar ◽  
Chantal J Leemrijse ◽  
Ien AM van de Goor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Older People ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Setting ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Falls Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

ObjectiveAlthough several falls risk assessment tools are available, it is unclear which have been validated and which would be most suitable for primary care practices. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable falls risk assessment tool for the primary care setting (ie, requires limited time, no expensive equipment and no additional space) and that has good predictive performance in the assessment of falls risk among older people living independently.DesignA systematic review based on prospective studies.MethodsAn extensive search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Tools were excluded if they required expensive and/or advanced software that is not usually available in primary care units and if they had not been validated in at least three different studies. Of 2492 articles published between January 2000 and July 2020, 27 were included.ResultsSix falls risk assessment tools were identified: Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Gait Speed test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Functional Reach test and falls history. Most articles reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 for these tools. Sensitivity and specificity varied substantially across studies (eg, TUG, sensitivity:10%–83.3%, specificity:28.4%–96.6%).ConclusionsGiven that none of the falls risk assessment tools had sufficient predictive performance (AUC <0.7), other ways of assessing high falls risk among independently living older people in primary care should be investigated. For now, the most suitable way to assess falls risk in the primary care setting appears to involve asking patients about their falls history. Compared with the other five tools, the falls history requires the least amount of time, no expensive equipment, no training and no spatial adjustments. The clinical judgement of healthcare professionals continues to be most important, as it enables the identification of high falls risk even for patients with no falls history.Trial registraion numberThe Netherlands Trial Register, NL7917; Pre-results.

AML-303: Systematic Review of Frailty Assessment Tools for Elderly Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. S200
Author(s):  
Dina Khalaf ◽  
Tobias Berg ◽  
Chris Hillis ◽  
Tom Kouroukis ◽  
Brian Leber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Frailty Assessment ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Stress, anxiety, depression and burnout in frontline health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic: a brief systematic review and new data from Russia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Mosolova ◽  
Dmitry Sosin ◽  
Sergey Mosolov
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Associated Risk Factors ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
The Impact

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been subject to increased workload while also exposed to many psychosocial stressors. In a systematic review we analyze the impact that the pandemic has had on HCWs mental state and associated risk factors. Most studies reported high levels of depression and anxiety among HCWs worldwide, however, due to a wide range of assessment tools, cut-off scores, and number of frontline participants in the studies, results were difficult to compare. Our study is based on two online surveys of 2195 HCWs from different regions of Russia during spring and autumn epidemic outbreaks revealed the rates of anxiety, stress, depression, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and perceived stress as 32.3%, 31.1%, 45.5%, 74.2%, 37.7% ,67.8%, respectively. Moreover, 2.4% of HCWs reported suicidal thoughts. The most common risk factors include: female gender, nurse as an occupation, younger age, working for over 6 months, chronic diseases, smoking, high working demands, lack of personal protective equipment, low salary, lack of social support, isolation from families, the fear of relatives getting infected. These results demonstrate the need for urgent supportive programs for HCWs fighting COVID-19 that fall into higher risk factors groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document