Training and Careers

Introduction

The British Geriatrics Society and NHS England recommend that patients aged 65 and over should be screened for frailty when presenting to healthcare services to facilitate early comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Recognition of frailty frequently relies on assessment by FY1s. We sought to assess a) how confident FY1s are in recognising and managing frailty, b) their understanding of CGA, and c) how these change during the year.

Methods

Questionnaires (quantitative and qualitative data) were given to FY1s at induction, 6 months, and 12 months. Teaching sessions on frailty and CGA were delivered. We collated feedback on how frailty recognition and CGA knowledge had altered their assessment of older people.

Results

All FY1 Doctors completed the survey at induction. The 6 months and 12 months surveys were emailed to FY1s. The survey response rate was 100% (31/31), 68% (21/31) and 58% (18/31), respectively. At induction, 23% (7/31) reported they were “quite” or “very” confident in assessing for frailty. This increased to 71% at 6 months and 100% at 12 months. Fifty-two per cent (16/31) of FY1 Doctors were aware of a tool to assess for frailty at baseline, increasing to 100% (18/18) at 12 months. Knowledge of CGA improved less, from 48% (15/31) at baseline to 83% (15/18) at 12 months. There was no association between speciality experience and confidence levels. Feedback from FY1 doctors indicated that frailty recognition allowed identification of patients who may benefit from advanced care planning discussions and triggered early therapy input.

Conclusions

Despite BGS and NHS England recommendations, at induction, FY1s lack confidence in frailty recognition and assessment. Through experiential learning and targeted teaching this improved, not limited to those in geriatric medicine. We recommend final year medical students need increased frailty and CGA specific education to improve their confidence when assessing frail older patients.

Introduction
Timely administration of medication for people living with Parkinson’s Disease (PwP) is critical. Missed or delayed Parkinson’s Disease (PD) medication can lead to motor complications, swallow impairment, and in some cases a neuroleptic malignant type syndrome. This can lead to morbidity and mortality and longer hospital stays. Our local policy on the nil by mouth (NBM) guidance for PwP is available on the intranet. We wanted to audit knowledge of, and adherence to this policy.

Method
An audit tool was used to collect responses from nursing and medical staff in the Clyde sector, including Royal Alexandra Hospital, Inverclyde Royal Hospital and Vale of Leven Hospital. Paper copies and QR code linking to the questionnaire were distributed across the wards between November 2022 to January 2023.

Results
A total of 124 responses were obtained, where 84 were prescribers. The responses showed some pre-existing understanding on the NBM policy for PwP, with 77% agreeing that Rotigotine patches should be considered if the oral or enteral feeding route is unavailable. 67% also knew the frequency for Rotigotine patches to be changed. Of the responses, only 52 (50%) have seen the trust’s NBM policy. Prescribers were also asked on how to calculate the dose for Rotigotine patches, 37 (52%) knew of the online calculator or referring to a guideline, with the remaining unsure or leaving the question unanswered. 41 (33%) knew the location of the emergency stock for PD meds.

Conclusion
Our study has shown a gap in the awareness of the NBM trust policy for PwP and highlights the need for more staff education. Educating medical staff at their weekly teaching and signposting them to the local guidance will be a starting point for our intervention. For the wider hospital staff, further training will be provided during PD awareness week.
 

The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form is widely adopted to document advanced care plans, including Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Communication between clinicians and patients, or next of kin is required for completion. It is widely documented UK medical students have little exposure to these experiences, including being asked to leave whilst they are occurring. During the COVID19 pandemic, Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctors led discussions with increased frequency and autonomy, with no documented concurrent training. We present a novel learning experience designed to aid these discussions. Students were timetabled to a 1.5 hour workshop, facilitated by a clinical teaching fellow. They were invited to complete a ReSPECT form for a celebrity to familiarise themselves with the layout. They then considered a patient admission scenario in 3 different groups from the perspective of the patient, family and medical team, and used this to contemplate potential, future, emergency treatments. Subsequently a discussion surrounding CPR effectiveness, ways of communicating this, and legal advanced decision documents occurred. The session concludes with scrutinising example ReSPECT forms provided by the Resuscitation Council UK.

Method: Students' confidence levels were measured pre and post session using a Likhert scale questionnaire.

Results: 90 students attended workshops across 6 rotations. 80% students completed post - session questionnaires, of which 100% reported an increase in confidence with having a DNACPR/advanced care planning discussion compared to before the session.

Conclusion: DNACPR conversations can incite anxiety in any seniority of health care professionals. Medical educators need to adequately prepare medical students during their training in advanced care planning and DNACPR discussions. This can be done with simulated workshop experiences, reinforced with opportunistic or organised observational experience. Adequate preparation will lead to increased confidence in discussions, ultimately leading to better experiences for patients and their families.

Introduction

NICE Clinical Guideline CG103 states that adults aged 65 and older should be screened for delirium within 48 hours of emergency hospital admission. The Geriatric Medicine Research Collaborative (GeMRC)'s World Delirium Day data from 2019 showed an average screening rate of 27% nationally. After an inpatient fall on the Medical Assessment Unit resulted in hip fracture for a patient who had not been screened for delirium with the recommended 4 A's Test (4AT), we decided to collect data on screening rates and devised a way of improving these.

Method

Baseline data was collected examining patient notes of adults over 65 years currently on the Medical Assessment Unit who had been seen by a doctor. The intervention was a teaching session on delirium for the junior doctors on the ward, focusing on the adverse prognostic features of delirium and importance of clear diagnosis with onward communication to the patient's GP. Repeat data collection was done following this.

Results

55% of all patients on the ward throughout data collection were over 65 years of age. A total of 79 patient notes were examined. The baseline rate of delirium screening with a completed 4AT pre-intervention was 25%. Post-intervention this increased to 41.3%. Without further education this fell to 26.9%. Most of the unscreened patients showed incomplete 4ATs or only the Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) section completed.

Conclusion

Integrating delirium teaching into departmental teaching on Acute Medical Units can increase the rates at which delirium is diagnosed, which is important for the patient's clinical trajectory and prognosis, both for their inpatient stay and long term. After this data was presented at a clinical governance meeting, the Emergency Department purchased an electronic patient record including mandatory delirium screening in those over 65 presenting to hospital. Future work may include assessing the rate of documented diagnosis out of those who clinically fit the criteria.