↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive geriatric assessment pilot of a randomized control study in a Swedish acute hospital: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comprehensive geriatric assessment pilot of a randomized control study in a Swedish acute hospital: a feasibility study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0228-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa Westgård, Isabelle Ottenvall Hammar, Eva Holmgren, Anna Ehrenberg, Aase Wisten, Anne W. Ekdahl, Synneve Dahlin-Ivanoff, Katarina Wilhelmson

Abstract

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) represent an important component of geriatric acute hospital care for frail older people, secured by a multidisciplinary team who addresses the multiple needs of physical health, functional ability, psychological state, cognition and social status. The primary objective of the pilot study was to determine feasibility for recruitment and retention rates. Secondary objectives were to establish proof of principle that CGA has the potential to increase patient safety. The CGA pilot took place at a University hospital in Western Sweden, from March to November 2016, with data analyses in March 2017. Participants were frail people aged 75 and older, who required an acute admission to hospital. Participants were recruited and randomized in the emergency room. The intervention group received CGA, a person-centered multidisciplinary team addressing health, participation, and safety. The control group received usual care. The main objective measured the recruitment procedure and retention rates. Secondary objectives were also collected regarding services received on the ward including discharge plan, care plan meeting and hospital risk assessments including risk for falls, nutrition, decubitus ulcers, and activities of daily living status. Participants were recruited from the emergency department, over 32 weeks. Thirty participants were approached and 100% (30/30) were included and randomized, and 100% (30/30) met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen participants were included in the intervention and 14 participants were included in the control. At baseline, 100% (16/16) intervention and 100% (14/14) control completed the data collection. A positive propensity towards the secondary objectives for the intervention was also evidenced, as this group received more care assessments. There was an average difference between the intervention and control in occupational therapy assessment - 0.80 [95% CI 1.06, - 0.57], occupational therapy assistive devices - 0.73 [95% CI 1.00, - 0.47], discharge planning -0.21 [95% CI 0.43, 0.00] and care planning meeting 0.36 [95% CI-1.70, -0.02]. Controlling for documented risk assessments, the intervention had for falls - 0.94 [95% CI 1.08, - 0.08], nutrition - 0.87 [95% CI 1.06, - 0.67], decubitus ulcers - 0.94 [95% CI 1.08, - 0.80], and ADL status - 0.80 [95% CI 1.04, - 0.57]. The CGA pilot was feasible and proof that the intervention increased safety justifies carrying forward to a large-scale study. Clinical Trials ID: NCT02773914. Registered 16 May 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 17%
Psychology 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 32 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,783,735
of 19,833,076 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#279
of 789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,726
of 389,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,833,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.