Introduction
Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become ...critically ill with COVID‐19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia.
Main recommendations
The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID‐19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID‐19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease‐directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID‐19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care.
Changes in management as result of the guideline
The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID‐19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.
OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors and consequences of nutritional risk, as determined by the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), in older recipients of domiciliary care services living at home.
...DESIGN: Baseline analysis of subject characteristics with low MNA scores (<24) and follow‐up of the consequences of these low scores.
SETTING: South Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty domiciliary care clients (aged 67–99, 173 women).
MEASUREMENTS: Baseline history and nutritional status were determined. Information about hospitalization was obtained at follow‐up 12 months later.
INTERVENTION: Letters suggesting nutritional intervention were sent to general practitioners of subjects not well nourished.
RESULTS: At baseline, 56.8% were well nourished, 38.4% were at risk of malnutrition, and 4.8% were malnourished (43.2% not well nourished). Independent predictors of low MNA scores (<24) were living alone, and the physical and mental component scales of the 36‐item Short Form Health Survey. Follow‐up information was obtained for 240 subjects (96%). In the ensuing year not well‐nourished subjects were more likely than well‐nourished subjects to have been admitted to the hospital (risk ratio (RR) = 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07–2.14), have two or more emergency hospital admissions (RR = 2.96, 95% CI = 1.15–7.59), spend more than 4 weeks in the hospital (RR = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.29–8.07), fall (RR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.13–2.41), and report weight loss (RR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.67–4.15).
CONCLUSION: The MNA identified a large number of subjects with impaired nutrition who did significantly worse than well‐nourished subjects during the following year. Studies are needed to determine whether nutritional or other interventions in people with low MNA scores can improve clinical outcomes.
PDF
