18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Age Alone is not Adequate to Determine Health-care Resource Allocation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

      Canadian Geriatrics Journal : CGJ
      Canadian Geriatrics Society
      frailty, aged, COVID-19, mechanical ventilation, health-care resources

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Canadian Geriatrics Society (CGS) fosters the health and well-being of older Canadians and older adults worldwide. Although severe COVID-19 illness and significant mortality occur across the lifespan, the fatality rate increases with age, especially for people over 65 years of age. The dichotomization of COVID-19 patients by age has been proposed as a way to decide who will receive intensive care admission when critical care unit beds or ventilators are limited. We provide perspectives and evidence why alternative approaches should be used.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Association between frailty and short- and long-term outcomes among critically ill patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

          Frailty is a multidimensional syndrome characterized by loss of physiologic and cognitive reserves that confers vulnerability to adverse outcomes. We determined the prevalence, correlates and outcomes associated with frailty among adults admitted to intensive care. We prospectively enrolled 421 critically ill adults aged 50 or more at 6 hospitals across the province of Alberta. The primary exposure was frailty, defined by a score greater than 4 on the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events, 1-year mortality and quality of life. The prevalence of frailty was 32.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.3%-37.5%). Frail patients were older, were more likely to be female, and had more comorbidities and greater functional dependence than those who were not frail. In-hospital mortality was higher among frail patients than among non-frail patients (32% v. 16%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.81, 95% CI 1.09-3.01) and remained higher at 1 year (48% v. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.28-2.60). Major adverse events were more common among frail patients (39% v. 29%; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.01-2.37). Compared with nonfrail survivors, frail survivors were more likely to become functionally dependent (71% v. 52%; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.03-4.89), had significantly lower quality of life and were more often readmitted to hospital (56% v. 39%; OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.22-3.23) in the 12 months following enrolment. Frailty was common among critically ill adults aged 50 and older and identified a population at increased risk of adverse events, morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of frailty could improve prognostication and identify a vulnerable population that might benefit from follow-up and intervention.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Clinical Frailty Scale in an Acute Medicine Unit: a Simple Tool That Predicts Length of Stay

            Background Frailty is characterized by increased vulnerability to external stressors. When frail older adults are admitted to hospital, they are at increased risk of adverse events including falls, delirium, and disability. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a practical and efficient tool for assessing frailty; however, its ability to predict outcomes has not been well studied within the acute medical service. Objective To examine the CFS in elderly patients admitted to the acute medical ward and its association with length of stay. Design Prospective cohort study in an acute care university hospital in London, Ontario, Canada, involving 75 patients over age 65, admitted to the general internal medicine clinical teaching units (CTU). Measurements Patient demographics were collected through chart review, and CFS score was assigned to each patient after brief clinician assessment. The CFS ranges from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill) based on descriptors and pictographs of activity and functional status. The CFS was collapsed into three categories: non-frail (CFS 1–4), mild-to-moderately frail (CFS 5–6), and severely frail (CFS 7–8). Outcomes of length of stay and 90-day readmission were gathered through the LHSC electronic patient record. Results Severe frailty was associated with longer lengths of stay (Mean = 12.6 ± 12.7 days) compared to mild-to-moderate frailty (mean = 11.2 ± 10.8 days), and non-frailty (mean = 4.1 ± 2.1 days, p = .014). This finding was significant after adjusting for age, sex, and number of medications. Participants with higher frailty scores showed higher readmission rates when compared with those with no frailty (31.2% for severely frail, vs. 34.2% for mild-to-moderately frail vs. 19% for non-frail) although there was no significant difference in the adjusted analysis. Conclusion The CFS helped identify patients that are more likely to have prolonged hospital stays on the acute medical ward. The CFS is an easy to use tool which can detect older adults at high risk of complicated course and longer stay. Objective early identification of seniors with frailty in acute care units can help to target interventions to prevent complications and to implement effective discharge planning in high risk older adults.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Futility and rationing.

              It seems more than coincidental that at a time of great concern over rising health care costs and fears of rampant technology, debates are suddenly taking place about medical futility and health care rationing. This article examines the economic, historical, and demographic factors that have motivated increased attention to both these concepts, explores differences and similarities in the meaning of these terms, and discusses their ethical implications. Specifically, we identify four common sources of current debates on futility and rationing: the rise in health care costs; the development of high-technology medicine; the aging of society; and the effort to limit the scope of patient autonomy. We propose that when rationing criteria refer to medical benefit, the meanings of futility and rationing share certain common features. Futility and rationing differ, however, in important ways. Futility refers to treatment and outcome relationships not in a general population but in a specific patient. Rationing criteria usually are supported by reference to theories of justice, whereas the definition of futility, if achieved, will probably be arrived at by empirical community agreement. Rationing always occurs against a backdrop of resource scarcity, but futility need not. Toward the end of the paper, we clarify how the various connotations and contexts we associate with each term enhance or frustrate ethical debate.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                32550953
                7279701
                10.5770/cgj.23.452

                frailty,aged,COVID-19,mechanical ventilation,health-care resources

                Comments

                Comment on this article