Abstract
Summary
Background
Choosing the right intensity of medical care is a huge challenge particularly in long-term geriatric care. The Nascher score was developed to assess future medical care needs. The aim of this study was to determine whether the Nascher score and a revised version can predict future medical needs.
Methods
In this retrospective cohort study, 396 residents in long-term care hospitals, who were admitted over a period of two years and followed up to two and a half yeare, were analysed. Outcome parameters were: (1) number of medication changes, (2) number of ward doctor documentations and (3) number of acute illnesses treated with antibiotics, and mortality risk. Based on the first results, an alternative scoring of the Nascher score with 12 instead of 26 items was developed, called the revised Nascher score.
Results
The Nascher score significantly correlated with the number of medication changes, the number of ward doctor documentations, and the number of acute ilnesses treated with antibiotics with Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.30, 0.26, and 0.15, respectively. The revised Nascher score showed a higher correlation with correlation coefficients of 0.36, 0.26, and 0.21, respectively. Residents with a Nascher score in the highest quartile had a significantly higher mortality risk than residents in the lowest quartile (hazard ratio, HR 2.97, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.80–4.34). The corresponding values for the revised Nascher score were HR 3.03, 95% CI 2.03–4.54 in the highest and HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.24–2.60 in the middle quartiles.
Conclusion
The Nascher score and even more so the revised Nascher score are well suited to predicting the various parameters of future medical needs and mortality risk.
Funder
Medical University of Vienna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference25 articles.
1. Abdi S, Spann A, Borilovic J, de Witte L, Hawley M. Understanding the care and support needs of older people: a scoping review and categorisation using the WHO international classification of functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatr. 2019;19:195.
2. Skou ST, Mair FS, Fortin M, Guthrie B, Nunes BP, Miranda JJ, Boyd CM, Pati S, Mtenga S, Smith SM. Multimorbidity. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8:48.
3. Österreichische Gesellschaft für Geriatrie und Gerontologie (ÖGGG). Österreichisches Geriatrisches Basisassessment. 2011. https://geriatrie-online.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Basis-Assessement-1.pdf..
4. Parker SG, McCue P, Phelps K, McCleod A, Arora S, Nockels K, Kennedy S, Roberts H, Conroy S. What is comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA)? An umbrella review. Age Ageing. 2018;47:149–55.
5. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geriatrie (DGG). S1-Leitlinie Geriatrisches Assessment der Stufe 2, Living Guideline. https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/084-002LGl_S1_Geriatrisches_Assessment_der_Stufe_2_2024-02.pdf, Update 2024.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献