Involving Primary Care Health Professionals in Geriatric Assessment

  • B. Fougère
  • M. Cesari
  • H. Arai
  • J. Woo
  • R. A. Merchant
  • L. Flicker
  • A. Cherubini
  • J. M. Bauer
  • B. Vellas
  • J. E. Morley
Editorial
  • 89 Downloads

Key words

Primary care geriatric assessment screening frailty older person 

The screening and management of geriatric conditions, such as frailty and cognitive impairment, are now priorities, and their implementation in the clinical routine can no longer be ignored. Primary care is the first contact point of health services for community-dwelling individuals in many countries (1). It is a core component of the healthcare system where preventive strategies and care for the frail persons usually occur. Unfortunately, a good proportion of health professionals acting in this setting still have very limited training on geriatric principles and caring for older adults with geriatric syndromes and multi-morbidity. In addition, the resources from primary care practitioners that they can afford to spend for these purposes are often sparse. In order to promote a more geriatric responsive culture, a number of brief screening instruments for age-related conditions has been developed over the last few years (2,3). These include the Rapid Geriatric Assessment that has been developed in United-States; the Gerontopôle screening tool in Toulouse; the Kihon Checklist (KCL) in Japan; the Vulnerable Elders 13 Survey (VES-13); and the Easycare Twostep Older persons Screening (Easycare-TOS) in the United Kingdom.

Rapid Geriatric Assessment (RGA)

The RGA is a tool developed to support the quick identification of four geriatric syndromes: frailty, sarcopenia, anorexia, and cognitive dysfunction. At the same time, the instrument inquires if the person has provided advanced directives (4,5). It was developed to be used in conjunction with the Annual Medicare Wellness Visit (6). It takes less than 4 minutes to be administered. The components of the RGA are the FRAIL for frailty (7, 8, 9, 10), SARC-F for sarcopenia (11, 12, 13, 14), SNAQ for anorexia (15, 16, 17, 18), and the Rapid Cognitive Screen (19,20). All these screening tools have been used worldwide and are currently available in up to 30 languages. Moreover, their predictive value has been demonstrated; for example, in a group of persons with diabetes mellitus, both the SARC-F and FRAIL were strongly associated with incident disability and hospitalization (7).

Thanks to its implementation in the clinical routine, educational interventions have been possible in different settings, from academic centers to rural counties. To date, over 6,000 persons have been evaluated either adopting it as part of case finding processes at the physicians’ offices as well as during screening campaigns in the community. Preliminary results from this database show that the prevalence of frailty, sarcopenia, anorexia, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia might be relatively common (23%, 32.8%, 34.7%, 19.3%, and 23.9%, respectively).

Interestingly, a computerized assessment and management program for physicians’ offices has been developed for use with this screening model. The software is designed to support the physician in the design of personalized interventions according to the screening results. It is noteworthy that this approach has shown to be well accepted by general practitioners (5).

Gerontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST)

The GFST was developed to help healthcare professionals at identifying community-dwelling older adults with frailty (21,22). The GFST is not aimed at measuring the severity of frailty, but simply at activating a dedicated pathway for disability prevention in the healthcare system.

The GFST includes questions about social aspects, involuntary weight loss, exhaustion, mobility issues, and memory complaints. However, the result of the tool is driven by the clinical judgment of the physician who, in the light of the positive answers to the previous questions, can provide robust and framed conclusions. The positive result at the GFST should then refer the individual to a geriatric clinic for further assessment (23). Although the agreement with the frailty phenotype was moderate (kappa of 0.45) (24), it was found that the GFST had good ability to identify true positive cases (25).

Kihon Checklist (KCL)

The KCL is a self-reported comprehensive health checklist for assessing physical, social, and mental functions of older persons who are vulnerable to frailty or higher risk of becoming dependent (26, 27). It is suitable for screening frailty in the clinical setting as well as in the community. Moreover, it can be used by healthcare professionals for identifying the target and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, because the KCL consists of assessing ADL, motor abilities, nutrition, oral function, socialization, cognition, and mood. Based on the total KCL scores, older persons can be classified as robust, prefrail, and frail. The KCL score is predictive of adverse health outcomes (28, 29).

Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13)

This VES-13 tool is a self-administrated questionnaire (30), whose aim is to identify community older people at increased risk of death or functional decline (31). It includes 13 items concerning self-reported health, physical activity and physical impairments. It takes less than 10 minutes to be completed (32). A score greater than or equal to 3 indicates a vulnerable individual (30, 33).

Easycare Two-step Older persons Screening (Easycare-TOS)

The lack of a standardized instrument to efficiently assess the physical, mental, and social domains of the older person led to the development of the Easycare model in 1994 by Philp and colleagues. The components of the Easycare model were gathered from a variety of validated tools using a consensus process among healthcare professionals in Europe. In the original acceptability studies, the model was found to be useful for the outpatient clinic, in particular to identify levels of unmet clinical needs in community-dwelling elders (34). Philip and colleagues developed a brief standardized method for assessing the perceptions of older people about their health and care needs/priorities: the Easycare-TOS (35, 36).

The model is based on a two-step approach. First, a short instrument allows a pre-screening of older persons based on the general practitioner’s knowledge. In particular, the physician reviews the patient’s records and answers 14 questions about the functioning of the individual. The 14 questions are meant to raise awareness in the general practitioner about relevant aspects of his patient’s health status. On the basis of these results, the physician decides whether the patient is frail or not, or whether the existing information is insufficient to draw robust conclusions. The patients who are considered as frail (or for which an insufficient amount of information is available) become eligible for the second step, which is focused at collecting more details through a structured in-depth evaluation conducted by a primary care nurse.

Conclusions

This list of examples is surely not exhaustive, and suggests that there are opportunities for conducting high quality case finding for geriatric conditions in primary care. In many low-middle income countries, primary health care is not well resourced with few doctors. Screening tools that can be administered by trained workers that are not doctors would be of great help as a first step in identifying suitable patients in primary care.

In this context, it is always good to keep in mind that the first step to prevent disability in older adults is to raise awareness about these often neglected geriatric conditions with public health authorities, health professionals, and the general population (37). Older persons and their caregivers should be educated at not underestimating signs and symptoms that too often are labelled as “due to old age”. Individuals should be empowered by a greater understanding of their own health status and given responsibility for promptly acting (especially in adopting healthy lifestyles). At the same time, healthcare professionals need to be trained about the nature and consequences of geriatric conditions. The World Health Organization, with support from 30 experts in geriatric medicine, has initiated the development of evidence-based guidelines on Integrated care for older people (38). Targeted at non-specialist health workers, they will guide home-based interventions for older people that can prevent, reverse or slow declines in intrinsic capacity. Geriatric services have to stay available for referral of the most complex older patients.

Finally, case finding needs to be part of the overall care systems and must take advantage of available formal and informal contacts that the older person may have with health care and social services. Public health authorities must become familiar with the increasing burdens that disability will impose on these systems, and become more proactive in the planning and implementation of care models that priorities multidisciplinary and integrated services (39).

References

  1. 1.
    Auyeung TW, Lee JSW, Leung J, Kwok T, Woo J. The selection of a screening test for frailty identification in community-dwelling older adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18(2):199–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morley JE. Frailty screening comes of age. J Nutr Health Aging. ma. 2014;18(5):453–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dent E, Kowal P, Hoogendijk EO. Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: A review. Eur J Intern Med. 30 mar. 2016Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morley JE, Adams EV. Rapid Geriatric Assessment. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 1 oc. 2015;16(10):808–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morley JE, Little MO, Berg-Weger M. Rapid Geriatric Assessment: A Tool for Primary Care Physicians. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 1 mar. 2017;18(3):195–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu J, Jensen GA, Nerenz D, Tarraf W. Medicare’s Annual Wellness Visit in a Large Health Care Organization: Who Is Using It? Ann Intern Med. 6 oc. 2015;163(7):567–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging. juil. 2012;16(7):601–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woo J, Yu R, Wong M, Yeung F, Wong M, Lum C. Frailty Screening in the Community Using the FRAIL Scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 1 ma. 2015;16(5):412–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ribeiro SML, Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Physical Activity as Predictors of Disability Risk Factors in African-American Middle-Aged Individuals. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(9):891–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chode S, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Morley JE. Frailty, Diabetes, and Mortality in Middle-Aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(8):854–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cao L, Chen S, Zou C, Ding X, Gao L, Liao Z, et al. A pilot study of the SARC-F scale on screening sarcopenia and physical disability in the Chinese older people. J Nutr Health Aging. mar. 2014;18(3):277–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balogun S, Winzenberg T, Wills K, Scott D, Jones G, Aitken D, et al. Prospective Associations of Low Muscle Mass and Function with 10-Year Falls Risk, Incident Fracture and Mortality in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2017;21(7):843–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moon JH, Moon JH, Kim KM, Choi SH, Lim S, Park KS, et al. Sarcopenia as a Predictor of Future Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(5):496–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yadigar S, Yavuzer H, Yavuzer S, Cengiz M, Yürüyen M, Döventas A, et al. Primary Sarcopenia in Older People with Normal Nutrition. J Nutr Health Aging. mar. 2016;20(3):234–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rolland Y, Perrin A, Gardette V, Filhol N, Vellas B. Screening older people at risk of malnutrition or malnourished using the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ): a comparison with the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) tool. J Am Med Dir Assoc. jan. 2012;13(1):31–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pilgrim AL, Baylis D, Jameson KA, Cooper C, Sayer AA, Robinson SM, et al. Measuring Appetite with the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire Identifies Hospitalised Older People at Risk of Worse Health Outcomes. J Nutr Health Aging. jan. 2016;20(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martínez-Reig M, Gómez-Arnedo L, Alfonso-Silguero SA, Juncos-Martínez G, Romero L, Abizanda P. Nutritional risk, nutritional status and incident disability in older adults. The FRADEA study. J Nutr Health Aging. mar. 2014;18(3):270–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morley JE. Anorexia, sarcopenia, and Aging. Nutr Burbank Los Angel Cty Calif. aoû. 2001;17(7-8):660–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malmstrom TK, Voss VB, Cruz-Oliver DM, Cummings-Vaughn LA, Tumosa N, Grossberg GT, et al. The Rapid Cognitive Screen (RCS): A Point-of-Care Screening for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Nutr Health Aging. aoû. 2015;19(7):741–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morley JE. Mild cognitive impairment-a treatable condition. J Am Med Dir Assoc. jan. 2014;15(1):1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vellas B, Balardy L, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Abellan Van Kan G, Ghisolfi-Marque A, Subra J, et al. Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: the Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST). J Nutr Health Aging. juil. 2013;17(7):629–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soler V, Sourdet S, Balardy L, Abellan van Kan G, Brechemier D, Rougé-Bugat ME, et al. Visual Impairment Screening at the Geriatric Frailty Clinic for Assessment of Frailty and Prevention of Disability at the Gérontopôle. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(8):870–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fougère B, Sirois M-J, Carmichael P-H, Batomen-Kuimi B-L, Chicoulaa B, Escourrou E, et al. General Practitioners’ Clinical Impression in the Screening for Frailty: Data From the FAP Study Pilot. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 1 fév. 2017;18(2):193.e1–193.e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cherubini A, Demougeot L, Jentoft AC, Curgunlu A, Michel J-P, Roberts H, et al. Relationship between the Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool and the frailty phenotype in primary care. Eur Geriatr Med. 1 dé. 2015;6(6):518–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tavassoli N, Guyonnet S, Abellan Van Kan G, Sourdet S, Krams T, Soto ME, et al. Description of 1,108 older patients referred by their physician to the « Geriatric Frailty Clinic (G.F.C) for Assessment of Frailty and Prevention of Disability » at the gerontopole. J Nutr Health Aging. ma. 2014;18(5):457–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Satake S, Senda K, Hong Y-J, Miura H, Endo H, Sakurai T, et al. Validity of the Kihon Checklist for assessing frailty status. Geriatr Gerontol Int. jui. 2016;16(6):709–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sewo Sampaio PY, Sampaio RAC, Yamada M, Arai H. Systematic review of the Kihon Checklist: Is it a reliable assessment of frailty? Geriatr Gerontol Int. aoû. 2016;16(8):893–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yamada Y, Nanri H, Watanabe Y, Yoshida T, Yokoyama K, Itoi A, et al. Prevalence of Frailty Assessed by Fried and Kihon Checklist Indexes in a Prospective Cohort Study: Design and Demographics of the Kyoto-Kameoka Longitudinal Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 1 aoû. 2017;18(8):733.e7–733.e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arai H. THE KIHON CHECKLIST: IS IT A RELIABLE ASSESSMENT OF FRAILTY? Innov Aging. 1 juil. 2017;1(suppl_1):2–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saliba D, Elliott M, Rubenstein LZ, Solomon DH, Young RT, Kamberg CJ, et al. The Vulnerable Elders Survey: a tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc. dé. 2001;49(12):1691–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Min L, Yoon W, Mariano J, Wenger NS, Elliott MN, Kamberg C, et al. The vulnerable elders-13 survey predicts 5-year functional decline and mortality outcomes in older ambulatory care patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. no. 2009;57(11):2070–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soubeyran P, Bellera C, Goyard J, Heitz D, Curé H, Rousselot H, et al. Screening for vulnerability in older cancer patients: the ONCODAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study. PloS One. 2014;9(12):e115060.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mohile SG, Bylow K, Dale W, Dignam J, Martin K, Petrylak DP, et al. A pilot study of the vulnerable elders survey-13 compared with the comprehensive geriatric assessment for identifying disability in older patients with prostate cancer who receive androgen ablation. Cancer. 15 fév. 2007;109(4):802–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Philp I. Can a medical and social assessment be combined? J R Soc Med. 1997;90 Suppl 32:11–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Philip KE, Alizad V, Oates A, Donkin DB, Pitsillides C, Syddall SP, et al. Development of EASY-Care, for brief standardized assessment of the health and care needs of older people; with latest information about cross-national acceptability. J Am Med Dir Assoc. jan. 2014;15(1):42–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Melis RJF, van Eijken MIJ, Teerenstra S, van Achterberg T, Parker SG, Borm GF, et al. A randomized study of a multidisciplinary program to intervene on geriatric syndromes in vulnerable older people who live at home (Dutch EASYcare Study). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. mar. 2008;63(3):283–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rodríguez-Artalejo F, Rodríguez-Mañas L. The frailty syndrome in the public health agenda. J Epidemiol Community Health. aoû. 2014;68(8):703–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    WHO. Integrated care for older people [Internet]. WHO. 2017 [cité 10 oct 2017]. Disponible sur: http://www.who.int/ageing/health-systems/integrated-care/en/Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cesari M, Prince M, Thiyagarajan JA, De Carvalho IA, Bernabei R, Chan P, et al. Frailty: An Emerging Public Health Priority. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 1 mar. 2016;17(3):188–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Fougère
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 11
  • M. Cesari
    • 4
  • H. Arai
    • 5
  • J. Woo
    • 6
  • R. A. Merchant
    • 7
  • L. Flicker
    • 8
  • A. Cherubini
    • 9
  • J. M. Bauer
    • 10
  • B. Vellas
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. E. Morley
    • 3
  1. 1.Gérontopôle, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Inserm UMR1027Université de Toulouse III Paul SabatierToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Division of Geriatric MedicineSaint Louis University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  4. 4.Geriatric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ GrandaOspedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly
  5. 5.Department of Human Health ServicesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  6. 6.Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  7. 7.Division of Geriatric MedicineNational University HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  8. 8.Geriatric MedicineUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  9. 9.Geriatria, Accettazione Geriatrica e Centro di ricerca per l’invecchiamentoIstituto Nazionale di Riposo e Cura per Anziani (IRCCS-INRCA)AnconaItaly
  10. 10.Center for Geriatric MedicineUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  11. 11.Institut du Vieillissement, GérontopôleUniversité Toulouse III Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations