[How "elderly-proof" are the current medical specialist guidelines in the Netherlands?]

Nicky A B de Rooij, Marlies Verhoeff, Rianne Lindeboom, Carolien M J van der Linden, Barbara C van Munster
{"title":"[How \"elderly-proof\" are the current medical specialist guidelines in the Netherlands?]","authors":"Nicky A B de Rooij,&nbsp;Marlies Verhoeff,&nbsp;Rianne Lindeboom,&nbsp;Carolien M J van der Linden,&nbsp;Barbara C van Munster","doi":"10.36613/tgg.1875-6832/2021.02.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The prevalence of multimorbidity increases with age, with over 70% of people aged 75 years and over having three or more chronic conditions, often combined with frailty. In current medical practice, evidence-based medicine with evidence-based guidelines forms the basis for treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the practical applicability of the current medical specialist guidelines for the treatment of the heterogeneous group of older patients. All guidelines from the Dutch guidelines database were examined. Twelve guidelines identified as elderly-specific were compared with the recommendations from the 'methodology for the development of guidelines tailored to the elderly'. In 117 guidelines (54%) general terms such as 'older' or 'elderly' were found. An age limit was mentioned in 26 guidelines (12%). The term 'frailty' was mentioned in 38 guidelines (18%), the term 'comorbidity' in 107 (50%) and cognitive problems in eight (4%). Five age-specific guidelines distinguished frail from non-frail older people. Three guidelines discussed relevant outcome measures for the elderly. The results show that the practical applicability of current guidelines is not optimal for the various groups of older people. In our opinion, the improvement of the guidelines preferably by implementation of the Dutch methodology for senior-proof guidelines is a necessary first step in making the current second-line evidence-based guidelines in the Netherlands usable for the growing group of frail and multimorbid elderly.</p>","PeriodicalId":39945,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie","volume":"52 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36613/tgg.1875-6832/2021.02.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The prevalence of multimorbidity increases with age, with over 70% of people aged 75 years and over having three or more chronic conditions, often combined with frailty. In current medical practice, evidence-based medicine with evidence-based guidelines forms the basis for treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the practical applicability of the current medical specialist guidelines for the treatment of the heterogeneous group of older patients. All guidelines from the Dutch guidelines database were examined. Twelve guidelines identified as elderly-specific were compared with the recommendations from the 'methodology for the development of guidelines tailored to the elderly'. In 117 guidelines (54%) general terms such as 'older' or 'elderly' were found. An age limit was mentioned in 26 guidelines (12%). The term 'frailty' was mentioned in 38 guidelines (18%), the term 'comorbidity' in 107 (50%) and cognitive problems in eight (4%). Five age-specific guidelines distinguished frail from non-frail older people. Three guidelines discussed relevant outcome measures for the elderly. The results show that the practical applicability of current guidelines is not optimal for the various groups of older people. In our opinion, the improvement of the guidelines preferably by implementation of the Dutch methodology for senior-proof guidelines is a necessary first step in making the current second-line evidence-based guidelines in the Netherlands usable for the growing group of frail and multimorbid elderly.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[荷兰目前的医学专家指南有多“防老”?]
多病的患病率随着年龄的增长而增加,75岁及以上的人群中有70%以上患有三种或三种以上的慢性疾病,通常伴有虚弱。在目前的医学实践中,循证医学和循证指南构成了治疗的基础。本研究的目的是确定当前医学专家指南的实际适用性,以治疗异质组老年患者。审查了荷兰指南数据库中的所有指南。将确定为针对老年人的12项指导方针与“针对老年人制定指导方针的方法”中的建议进行比较。在117份指南中(54%)发现了“年长”或“老年”等一般术语。26条(12%)指南中提到了年龄限制。38份指南(18%)提到了“虚弱”一词,107份(50%)提到了“共病”一词,8份(4%)提到了认知问题。五项针对特定年龄的指南区分了体弱和非体弱的老年人。三个指南讨论了老年人的相关结果测量。结果表明,现行指南的实际适用性并不适合各种老年人群体。我们认为,最好是通过实施荷兰的高级证据指南方法来改进指南,这是使荷兰目前的二线循证指南适用于日益增多的体弱和多病老年人群体的必要的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Ervaringen met COVID-19 maatregelen onder oudere Nederlandse thuiswonende migranten [Evaluation of an information booklet on end-of-life care in dementia: a mixed-methods study assessing the preferences of family caregivers and healthcare professionals]. Onderzoek naar kwetsbaarheid bij ouderen: waar staan we 15 jaar na het Nationaal Programma Ouderenzorg? [The tradeoff between an open or closed unit for residents with dementia: a qualitative study]. [Experiences, wishes and needs of patients with regard to patient participation during geriatric rehabilitation].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1