Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Jul 6:(7):CD006211.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006211.pub2.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital

Affiliations
Review

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital

Graham Ellis et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

  • Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital.
    Ellis G, Gardner M, Tsiachristas A, Langhorne P, Burke O, Harwood RH, Conroy SP, Kircher T, Somme D, Saltvedt I, Wald H, O'Neill D, Robinson D, Shepperd S. Ellis G, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 12;9(9):CD006211. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006211.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28898390 Free PMC article. Review.

Abstract

Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional, interdisciplinary diagnostic process to determine the medical, psychological and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person in order to develop a co-ordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long-term follow up.

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of CGA in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AARP Ageline, and handsearched high-yield journals.

Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing CGA (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) to usual care.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors initially assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data.

Main results: Twenty-two trials evaluating 10,315 participants in six countries were identified. Patients in receipt of CGA were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at up to six months (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42, P = 0.0002) and at the end of scheduled follow up (median 12 months) (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.28, P = 0.003) when compared to general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be institutionalised (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88, P < 0.0001). They were less likely to suffer death or deterioration (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90, P = 0.001), and were more likely to experience improved cognition in the CGA group (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.01, P = 0.02). Subgroup interaction in the primary outcomes suggests that the effects of CGA are primarily the result of CGA wards.

Authors' conclusions: Comprehensive geriatric assessment increases a patient's likelihood of being alive and in their own home at up to 12 months.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Components of in-hospital CGA
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
’Risk of bias’ graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Graney MJ, Elam JT, Burns R, Akins DE. A randomized, controlled trial of a geriatric assessment unit in a community rehabilitation hospital. New England Journal of Medicine. 1990;322:1572–8. - PubMed
    2. Miller ST, Applegate WB, Elam JT, Graney MJ. Influence of diagnostic classification on outcomes and charges in geriatric assessment and rehabilitation. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1994;42:11–5. - PubMed
    1. Asplund K, Gustafsen Y, Jacobsson C, Bucht G, Wahlin A, Peterson J, et al. Geriatric-based versus general wards for older acute medical patients: a randomised comparison of outcomes and use of resources. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2000;48:1381–8. - PubMed
    1. Cohen HJ, Feussner JR, Weinberger M, Carnes M, Hamdy RC, Hseih F, et al. A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;346:905–12. - PubMed
    2. *

    3. Phibbs CS, Holty JEC, Goldstein MK, Garber AM, Wang Y, Feussner JR, et al. The effect of geriatrics evaluation and management on nursing home use and health care costs. Results from a randomised trial. Medical Care. 2006;44(1):91–5. - PubMed
    1. *

    2. Cohen HJ, Feussner JR, Weinberger M, Carnes M, Hamdy RC, Hsieh F, et al. A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;346:905–12. - PubMed
    1. Cohen HJ, Feussner JR, Weinberger M, Carnes M, Hamdy RC, Hsieh F, et al. A controlled trial of inpatientand outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;346:905–12. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Borok GM, Reuben DB, Zendle LJ, Ershoff DH, Wolde-Tsadik G. Rationale and design of a multi-centre randomized trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment consultation for hospitalised patients in an RMO. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1994;42(5):536–44. - PubMed
    1. Boult C, Boult L, Murphy C, Ebbitt B, Luptak M. Controlled trial of outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1994;42(5):465–70. - PubMed
    1. Campion EW, Jette A, Berkman B. Interdisciplinary geriatric consultation service: a controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1983;31(12):792–6. - PubMed
    1. Cole MG, Fenton FR, Engelsmann F, Mansouri I. Effectiveness of geriatric psychiatry consultation in an acute care hospital: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1991;39(12):1183–8. - PubMed
    1. Cunliffe AL, Gladman JRF, Husbands SL, Miller P, Dewey ME, Harwood RH. Sooner and healthier: a randomised controlled trial and interview study of an early discharge rehabilitation service for older people. Age & Ageing. 2004;33:246–52. - PubMed

Additional references

    1. Allen CA, Becker PM, McVey LJ, Saltz CC, Feussner JR, Cohen HJ. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of a geriatric consultation team. Compliance with recommendations. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1986;255(19):2617–21. [MEDLINE: 929] - PubMed
    1. Bachmann S, Finger C, Huss A, Egger M, Stuck AE, Clough-Gorr KM. In patient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c1718. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bakker FC, Robben SHM, Olde Rikkert MGM. Effects of hospital-wide interventions to improve care for frail older inpatients: a systematic review. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2011 doi:10.1136:/bmjqs.2010.047183. - PubMed
    1. Baztán JJ, Suárez-García FM, López-Arrieta J, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Rodríguez-Artalejo F. Effectiveness of acute geriatric units on functional decline, living at home, and case fatality among older patients admitted to hospital for acute medical disorders: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2009;338:b50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; [updated March 2011]. 2011. Vol. . Available from http://www.cochrane–handbook.org/