Suchergebnisse

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Files ; European Union Seventh Framework Programme

This work was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework program (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement n° 305930 ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint

The research leading to these results was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 305930 (SENATOR project). The sponsor did not play any role in the study design, methods, data collection and analysis, and preparation of the article. ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint

Introduction: Various operational definitions have been proposed to assess the frailty condition among older individuals. Our objective was to assess how practitioners measure the geriatric syndrome of frailty in their daily routine. Methods: An online survey was sent to national geriatric societies affiliated to the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) and to members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Results: A total of 388 clinicians from 44 countries answered to the survey. Most of them were medical doctors (93%), and their primary field of practice was geriatrics (83%). Two hundred and five clinicians (52.8%) always assessed frailty in their daily practice, 38.1% reported to "sometimes" measure it, and 9.1% never assess it. A substantial proportion of clinicians (64.9%) diagnose frailty using more than one instrument. The most widely used tool was the gait speed test, adopted by 43.8% of the clinicians, followed by clinical frailty scale (34.3%), the SPPB test (30.2%), the frailty phenotype (26.8%) and the frailty index (16.8%). Conclusion: A variety of tools is used to assess frailty of older patients in clinical practice highlighting the need for standardisation and guidelines.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Importance: Dual decline in both memory and gait speed may characterize a group of older individuals at high risk for future dementia. Objective: To assess the risk of dementia in older persons who experience parallel declines in memory and gait speed compared with those who experience no decline or decline in either memory or gait speed only. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicohort meta-analysis was performed of 6 prospective cohort studies conducted between 1997 and 2018 in the United States and Europe. Participants were 60 years or older, had an initial gait speed of more than 0.6 m/s (ie, free of overt dismobility), with repeated measures of memory and gait speed before dementia diagnosis during a mean follow-up of 6.6 to 14.5 years. Within each study, participants were divided into 4 groups: memory decline only, gait speed decline only, dual decline, or no decline (hereafter referred to as usual agers). Gait decline was defined as a loss of 0.05 m/s or more per year; memory decline was defined as being in the cohort-specific lowest tertile of annualized change. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of incident dementia according to group membership was examined by Cox proportional hazards regression with usual agers as the reference, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, study site, and baseline gait speed and memory. Results: Across the 6 studies of 8699 participants, mean age ranged between 70 and 74 years and mean gait speed ranged between 1.05 and 1.26 m/s. Incident dementia ranged from 5 to 21 per 1000 person-years. Compared with usual agers, participants with only memory decline had 2.2 to 4.6 times higher risk for developing dementia (pooled hazard ratio, 3.45 [95% CI, 2.45-4.86]). Those with only gait decline had 2.1 to 3.6 times higher risk (pooled hazard ratio, 2.24 [95% CI, 1.62-3.09]). Those with dual decline had 5.2 to 11.7 times the risk (pooled hazard ratio, 6.28 [95% CI, 4.56-8.64]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, dual decline of memory and gait speed was associated with increased risk of developing dementia among older individuals, which might be a potentially valuable group for preventive or therapeutic interventions. Why dual decline is associated with an elevated risk of dementia and whether these individuals progress to dementia through specific mechanisms should be investigated by future studies. ; This research work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (Drs Tian, Resnick, Launer, Simonsick, Studenski, and Ferrucci). The BLSA was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. The AGES-Reykjavik Study was funded by contract N01-AG-12100 from the National Institutes of Health; by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging; and by the Icelandic Heart Association and the Icelandic Parliament. The Health ABC study was supported by National Institute on Aging contracts N01-AG-6-2101, N01-AG-6-2103, and N01-AG-6-2106; National Institute on Aging grant R01-AG028050; and National Institute of Nursing Research grant R01-NR012459, and was funded in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. The MCSA was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (U01 AG006786), the Gerald and Henrietta Rauenhorst Foundation, and the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research; and was made possible by the Rochester Epidemiology Project (R01 AG034676). The SNAC-K was supported by the funders of the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care; the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sweden; the participating County Councils and Municipalities; and the Swedish Research Council. The InCHIANTI study was supported by National Institute on Aging contracts 263MD9164 (Dr Ferrucci) and 263 MD 821336, N01-AG-1-1, N01-AG-10211, and N01-AG-5-0002 (Dr Bandinelli), and partially supported by grant n PE 2011 02350413 of the Italian Ministry of Health (Dr Cherubini). ; Peer Reviewed

WOS: 000462615200022 ; PubMed ID: 30423032 ; the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations. under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators. the final recommendations include four different domains: General Considerations on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), Knowledge in patient care (36 sub-items), Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician (9 sub-items) and a domain on Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process (1 item). the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states. ; EUGMS ; The project was supported by EUGMS by a restricted grant in 2017, which was used to support the administrative work during the Delphi procedure.

Background: the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations. Methods: under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators. Results: the final recommendations include four different domains: 'General Considerations' on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), 'Knowledge in patient care' (36 sub-items), 'Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician' (9 sub-items) and a domain on 'Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process' (1 item). Conclusion: the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Download ; the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations. under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators. the final recommendations include four different domains: 'General Considerations' on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), 'Knowledge in patient care' (36 sub-items), 'Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician' (9 sub-items) and a domain on 'Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process' (1 item). the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states. ; EUGMS

Background: The European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations.Methods: Under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. 32 expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators.Results: The final recommendations include four different domains: "General Considerations" on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), "Knowledge in patient care" (36 sub-items), "Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician" (9 sub-items) and a domain on "Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process" (1 item).Conclusion: The current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states.