Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 94, Issue 4, pp 310–314 | Cite as

Admission Criteria in Short-term Geriatric Assessment Units

A Delphi Study
  • Charo Rodríguez
  • Marie-Jeanne Kergoat
  • Judith Latour
  • Paule Lebel
  • André-Pierre Contandriopoulos
  • Groupe de recherche sur l’évaluation de la prise en charge des personnes âgées fragiles
Article

Abstract

Background

In recent years, short-term geriatric care units that operate using an interdisciplinary approach have been established in Quebec and elsewhere, in order to provide frail elderly persons with better health care. The purpose of this study is to determine criteria that target the greatest number of individuals most likely to benefit from hospitalization in this type of care unit.

Methods

A Delphi survey was conducted. The panel of experts consisted of 54 physicians and nurses working in short-term geriatric care units in Quebec. Three questionnaires were mailed and 4-level Likert scales were used. Median values, and 25th and 75th percentiles to a maximum of 2, were chosen a priori as the definition of consensus.

Results

The survey used 14 inclusion criteria and 17 exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were divided into two categories and exclusion criteria were divided into four.

Interpretation

A typical clinical profile of a patient who should be admitted to a STGCU emerges: an elderly person presenting multiple pathologies, acute or sub-acute functional disability, and often related psychosocial problems. The instrument developed by this project is a practical guide for professionals in STGAUs as well as those responsible for allocating resources in the health care system.

Résumé

Objectif

Des unités de courte durée gériatriques (UCDG) offrant une approche de soins globale et interdisciplinaire ont été établies dans les hôpitaux généraux et spécialisés du Québec et d’ailleurs afin d’offrir aux personnes âgées fragiles des soins de santé adaptés à leurs besoins particuliers. L’objectif de la présente étude était d’établir les critères d’admissibilité ciblant le plus grand nombre de personnes à même de bénéficier d’une hospitalisation dans ce type de structure.

Méthode

Une enquête de type Delphi a été réalisée à cette fin. Le groupe d’experts était formé de 54 médecins et infirmières rattachés aux UCDG. L’enquête a été effectuée à l’aide de trois questionnaires postaux, et les réponses ont été mesurées selon une échelle de Likert à quatre niveaux. Un consensus a priori a été défini d’après les valeurs médianes, les 25e et 75e valeurs percentiles jusqu’à un maximum de 2.

Résultats

Un consensus a été obtenu autour de 14 critères d’inclusion et 17 critères d’exclusion. Les critères d’inclusion ont été regroupés en deux catégories, et les critères d’exclusion en quatre catégories. Un profil clinique type émerge de cette enquête: celui d’une personne âgée atteinte de multiples pathologies et d’un déclin fonctionnel aigu ou sub-aigu, souvent associé à des problèmes psychosociaux.

Conclusion

Ces critères apparaissent utiles à la fois pour les professionnels gérant les admissions en UCDG et pour les responsables de l’allocation des ressources dans notre système de santé.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hogan DB, Lebeuf C. Geriatrics in Canada. In: Michel JP, Rubenstein LZ, Vellas BJ, Albarede JL (Eds.), Geriatric Programs and Departments Around the World. Paris, France: Serdi Publishers, 1998;31–38.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Contandriopoulos AP, Kergoat MJ, Latour J, Lebel P, Leduc N, Roberge D, et al. L’évaluation de la prise en charge des personnes âgées fragiles par les unités de courte durée gériatriques (R99-07). Montréal, Québec: Université de Montréal, Faculté de médecine, Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en santé (GRIS), 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fournier MA, Leclerc C, Contandriopoulos AP, Kergoat MJ, Latour J, Lebel P, Philibert L. Les unités de courte durée gériatriques au Québec: portrait de la situation (R99-08). Montréal, Québec: Université de Montréal, Faculté de médecine, Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en santé (GRIS), 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR, Wieland GD, English PA, Sayre JA, Kane RL. Effectiveness of a Geriatric Evaluation Unit. N Engl J Med 1984;311(26):1664–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR. Geriatric assessment: An effective preventive medicine approach for frail older persons. In: Chernoff R, Lipschitz DA (Eds.). Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in the Elderly. New York, NY: Raven Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rubenstein LZ. An overview of comprehensive geriatric assessment: Rationale, history, program models, basic components. In: Rubenstein LZ, Wieland D, Bernaber R (Eds). Geriatric Assessment Technology: The State of Art. Milan, Italy: Editrice Kurtis, 1995;1–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland GD, Adams J, Rubenstein LZ. Comprehensive geriatric assessment: A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Lancet 1993;342(8878):1032–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trentini M, Semerano S, Rossi E, Giannandrea E, Vanelli M, Pandiani G, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and management: Experimental design, baseline data, and six-month preliminary results. Aging (Milano) 1995;7(3):224–33.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saltvedt I, Mo ES, Fayers P, Kaasa S, Sletvold O. Reduced mortality in treating acutely sick, frail older patients in a Geriatric Evaluation and Management Unit: A prospective randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50(5):792–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Landefeld CS, Palmer RM, Kresevic DM, Fortinsky RH, Kowai J. A randomized trial of care in a hospital medical unit especially designed to improve the functional outcomes of acutely ill older patients. N Engl J Med 1995;332(20):1338–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris RD, Henschke PJ, Popplewell PY, Randford AJ, Dond MH, Turnbull RJ, et al. A randomized study of outcomes in a defined group of acutely ill elderly patients managed in a geriatric assessment unit or a general medical unit. Austr N Z J Med 1991;21(2):230–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asplund K, Gustalfson Y, Jacobsson C, Bucht G, Wahling A, Peterson J, et al. Geriatric-based versus general wards for older acute medical patients: A randomized comparison of outcomes and use of resources. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48(11):1381–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Counsell SR, Holder CM, Liebenauer LL, Palmer RM, Fortinsky RhH, Gresevic DM, et al. Effects of a multicomponent intervention on functional outcomes and process of care in hospitalized older patients: A randomized controlled trial of acute care for elders (ACE) in a community hospital. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48(12):1572–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wieland D, Hedrick SC, Rubenstein LZ, Buchner DM, Reuben DB, Harker JO. Inpatient geriatric evaluation and management units: Organization and care patterns in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Gerontologist 1994;34(5):652–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wieland D, Rubenstein LZ, Hedrick SC, Reuben DB, Buchner DM. Inpatient geriatric evaluation and management units (GEMs) in the Veterans Health System: Diamonds in the rough? J Gerontol 1994;49(5):M195–M200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Applegate WB, Miller ST, Graney MJ, Elam JT, Burns R, Akin DE. A randomized, controlled trial of a geriatric assessment unit in a community rehabilitation hospital. N Engl J Med 1990;322(22):1572–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen HJ, Feussner JR, Weinberger M, Carnes M, Hamdy RC, Hsieh F, et al. A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. N Engl J Med 2002;346(12):905–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lavizzo-Moorey RJ, Hillman AL, Diserens D, Schwartz JS. Hospital’s motivation in establishing or closing geriatric evaluation management units: Diffusion of a new patient-care technology in a changing health care environment. J Gerontol 1993;48(3):M78-M83.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Helmer O, Rescher N. On the epistemology of the inexact sciences. Management Science 1959;6(1):25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science 1963;9(3):458–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Técnicas grupales para la planeación. México, D.F.: Editorial Trillas, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cooper MR. The Delphi technique: Characteristics and sequence model. Advances in Nursing Science 1984;7(1):72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: A critique. J Advanced Nurs 1987;12(6):729–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jairath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology (Part Two): A useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Admin 1994;7(4):7–20.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;140:5–55.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duffield C. The Delphi technique: A comparison of results obtained using two expert panels. Int J Nurs Studies 1993;30(3):227–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sackman H. Delphi Critique. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1975.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pill J. The Delphi method: Substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1971;5:57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milholland AV, Wheeler SG, Heieck JJ. Medical assessment by a Delphi group opinion technique. N Engl J Med 1973;288(24):1272–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Travis HR. The Delphi technique: A tool for community educators. Health Educ 1976;7(6):11–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dassa C, Lambert J, Blais R, Potvin D, Gauthier N. Effects of a neutral answer choice on the reliability and validity of attitude an opinion items. Can J Program Evaluation 1997;12(2):61–80.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: A methodological discussion. J Advanced Nurs 1994;19:180–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Enskär K, Carlsson M, Hamrin E, Kreuger A. Swedish health care personnel’s perceptions of disease and treatment-related problems experienced by children with cancer and their families. J Pediatric Oncology Nurs 1996;13(2):61–70.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Starkweather DB, Gelwicks L, Newcomer R. Delphi forecasting of health care organization. Inquiry 1975;12(1):37–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rudy SF. A review of Delphi surveys conducted to establish research priorities by specialty nursing organizations from 1985 to 1995. ORL-Head and Neck Nursing 1996;14(2):16–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grimes RM, Moseley K. An approach to an index of hospital performance. Health Serv Res 1976;11(3):288–301.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rainhorn JD, Brudon-Jakobowicz P, Reich MR. Priorities for pharmaceutical policies in developing countries: Results of a Delphi survey. WHO Bulletin OMS 1994;72:257–64.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grainger C, Griffiths R. Day surgery–how much is possible? A Delphi consensus among surgeons. Public Health 1994;108:257–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baxter SD, Thompson WO, Davis HC, Johnson MH. How do you remember you ate …?: A Delphi technique study to identify retrieval categories from fourth-grade children. J Am Dietetic Assoc 1997;97(1):31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Duffield C. The Delphi technique. The Austral J Advanced Nurs 1989;6(2):41–45.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cyphert FR, Grant WL. The Delphi technique: A case study. Kappan 1971;52(5):272–73.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Saunders RH, Hickler RB, Hall SA, Hitzhusen JC, Ingraham MR, Li L. A geriatric special-care unit: Experience in a university hospital. J Am Geriatr Soc 1983;31(11):685–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec. La courte durée gériatrique: éléments de réflexion et d’orientations. Québec, QC: L’auteur, 1986.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Applegate WB, Blass JP, Williams TF. Instruments for the functional assessment of older patients. N Engl J Med 1990;322(17):1207–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fillit H, Miller M. The geriatric evaluation and treatment unit: A model site for the acute care of the frail elderly, education, and research. Mount Sinai J Med 1993;60(6):475–81.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Karpi P. Effects of a geriatric inpatient unit on elderly home-care patients: A controlled trial. Aging (Milano) 1995;7(3):207–11.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bertozzi B, Barbisoni P, Franzoni S, Rozzini R, Frisoni GB, Trabucchi M. Factors related to length of stay in a geriatric evaluation and rehabilitation unit. Aging (Milano) 1996;8(3):170–75.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bergman H, Béland F, Lebel P, Contandriopoulos AP, Tousignant P, Brunelle Y, et al. Care for Canada’s frail elderly population: Fragmentation or integration? CMAJ 1997;157:1116–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charo Rodríguez
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marie-Jeanne Kergoat
    • 4
  • Judith Latour
    • 4
    • 5
  • Paule Lebel
    • 4
    • 6
  • André-Pierre Contandriopoulos
    • 3
    • 7
  • Groupe de recherche sur l’évaluation de la prise en charge des personnes âgées fragiles
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Area of Health Services and Policy ResearchMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.McGill Faculty of Management & Center for Strategy Studies in OrganizationsCanada
  3. 3.Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en santé (GRIS)Université de MontréalCanada
  4. 4.Institut universitaire de gériatrie de MontréalCentre de rechercheCanada
  5. 5.Pavillon Hôtel-DieuCentre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM)Canada
  6. 6.Direction de la santé publique de Montréal-CentreCanada
  7. 7.Département d’administration de la santéUniversité de MontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations