Geriatric evaluation and management: Current status and future research directions

W. Applegate, Richard (Rick) Deyo, A. Kramer, S. Meehan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the last decade the concept of geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) has been widely discussed in the literature. Studies of GEM have occurred primarily in three settings: inpatient units, outpatient clinics, and specialized types of home care. We have reviewed the literature, focusing on randomized trials, to determine the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these interventions. Two single-site randomized controlled trials of inpatient GEM units have been conducted and indicate that such units that provide care to targeted disabled older patients probably have a favorable impact on subsequent physical function, rates of institutionalization, and mortality. Two randomized trials of inpatient GEM consultation teams have been conducted. The trial that did not target high-risk individuals showed no benefit while the trial that did target an at-risk group showed that those receiving the service had improvements in mental status and short-term mortality. The results of randomized trials of outpatient GEM clinics to date have been unimpressive. Two trials of in-home GEM by a trained observer tended to show that the service resulted in a reduction in mortality. To date randomized trials of GEM have been very heterogeneous in terms of the type of assessment and subsequent care, the site in which services are delivered, and the manner in which patients are selected for the studies. This limits the ability to compare and extrapolate across studies. In the future there is a need to better clarify the selection of study participants, the exact structure of the assessment intervention provided, and the elements of successful interventions that may be most critical to insuring a good outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume39
Issue number9 II
StatePublished - 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Geriatrics
Inpatients
Mortality
Institutionalization
Home Care Services
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Direction compound
Outpatients
Referral and Consultation
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

Geriatric evaluation and management : Current status and future research directions. / Applegate, W.; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Kramer, A.; Meehan, S.

In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 39, No. 9 II, 1991.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f3b8156419534ae2b7704d06ada34e59,
title = "Geriatric evaluation and management: Current status and future research directions",
abstract = "In the last decade the concept of geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) has been widely discussed in the literature. Studies of GEM have occurred primarily in three settings: inpatient units, outpatient clinics, and specialized types of home care. We have reviewed the literature, focusing on randomized trials, to determine the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these interventions. Two single-site randomized controlled trials of inpatient GEM units have been conducted and indicate that such units that provide care to targeted disabled older patients probably have a favorable impact on subsequent physical function, rates of institutionalization, and mortality. Two randomized trials of inpatient GEM consultation teams have been conducted. The trial that did not target high-risk individuals showed no benefit while the trial that did target an at-risk group showed that those receiving the service had improvements in mental status and short-term mortality. The results of randomized trials of outpatient GEM clinics to date have been unimpressive. Two trials of in-home GEM by a trained observer tended to show that the service resulted in a reduction in mortality. To date randomized trials of GEM have been very heterogeneous in terms of the type of assessment and subsequent care, the site in which services are delivered, and the manner in which patients are selected for the studies. This limits the ability to compare and extrapolate across studies. In the future there is a need to better clarify the selection of study participants, the exact structure of the assessment intervention provided, and the elements of successful interventions that may be most critical to insuring a good outcome.",
author = "W. Applegate and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and A. Kramer and S. Meehan",
year = "1991",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
journal = "Journal of the American Geriatrics Society",
issn = "0002-8614",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9 II",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Geriatric evaluation and management

T2 - Current status and future research directions

AU - Applegate, W.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Kramer, A.

AU - Meehan, S.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - In the last decade the concept of geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) has been widely discussed in the literature. Studies of GEM have occurred primarily in three settings: inpatient units, outpatient clinics, and specialized types of home care. We have reviewed the literature, focusing on randomized trials, to determine the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these interventions. Two single-site randomized controlled trials of inpatient GEM units have been conducted and indicate that such units that provide care to targeted disabled older patients probably have a favorable impact on subsequent physical function, rates of institutionalization, and mortality. Two randomized trials of inpatient GEM consultation teams have been conducted. The trial that did not target high-risk individuals showed no benefit while the trial that did target an at-risk group showed that those receiving the service had improvements in mental status and short-term mortality. The results of randomized trials of outpatient GEM clinics to date have been unimpressive. Two trials of in-home GEM by a trained observer tended to show that the service resulted in a reduction in mortality. To date randomized trials of GEM have been very heterogeneous in terms of the type of assessment and subsequent care, the site in which services are delivered, and the manner in which patients are selected for the studies. This limits the ability to compare and extrapolate across studies. In the future there is a need to better clarify the selection of study participants, the exact structure of the assessment intervention provided, and the elements of successful interventions that may be most critical to insuring a good outcome.

AB - In the last decade the concept of geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) has been widely discussed in the literature. Studies of GEM have occurred primarily in three settings: inpatient units, outpatient clinics, and specialized types of home care. We have reviewed the literature, focusing on randomized trials, to determine the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these interventions. Two single-site randomized controlled trials of inpatient GEM units have been conducted and indicate that such units that provide care to targeted disabled older patients probably have a favorable impact on subsequent physical function, rates of institutionalization, and mortality. Two randomized trials of inpatient GEM consultation teams have been conducted. The trial that did not target high-risk individuals showed no benefit while the trial that did target an at-risk group showed that those receiving the service had improvements in mental status and short-term mortality. The results of randomized trials of outpatient GEM clinics to date have been unimpressive. Two trials of in-home GEM by a trained observer tended to show that the service resulted in a reduction in mortality. To date randomized trials of GEM have been very heterogeneous in terms of the type of assessment and subsequent care, the site in which services are delivered, and the manner in which patients are selected for the studies. This limits the ability to compare and extrapolate across studies. In the future there is a need to better clarify the selection of study participants, the exact structure of the assessment intervention provided, and the elements of successful interventions that may be most critical to insuring a good outcome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026014305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026014305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1885874

AN - SCOPUS:0026014305

VL - 39

JO - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

JF - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

SN - 0002-8614

IS - 9 II

ER -