Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Geriatric assessment (GA) in the elderly is vitally important for determining the optimal management for patients and the appropriate source of its financing. The search for a novel and compact tool stemmed from the clumsiness and complexity of the traditional instruments in scoring and interpretation.

Objectives: To assess the design, application and validity and reliability of a new tool for rapid geriatric assessment in the elderly.

Methods: We measured activities of daily living (ADL) scores using the new tool compared with a well-known (Barthel) index in a population study of 90 elderly subjects (20 males and 70 females) in four long-term care departments of a governmental geriatric center, representing a spectrum of subjects (independent, frail, mentally exhausted, and totally dependent).

Results: There was a good correlation between the two tools, as demonstrated by the correlation curve. The new test was found to be reliable and valid according to the Cronbach and Pearson indexes. Importantly, it took a mean of 5 minutes to complete compared to 20–30 minutes with the traditional tests. The interpretation is simple, unlike the complexity of the other tools.

Conclusions: The new tool for rapid geriatric assessment is able to evaluate the same and additional parameters measured by traditional tests and does so in much less time with equivalent validity and reliability.
 

Background: Recently, cognitive assessments of patients with Fabry disease highlighted neurocognitive impairment using test batteries that are time and labor intensive.

Objectives: To introduce a user-friendly self-administered tool for cognitive testing in patients with Fabry disease.

Methods: We used a computerized system requiring about 1 hour for patient follow-up. All patients with enzymatic and/or molecular diagnosis of Fabry disease seen in our clinic underwent assessment with the Fabry-specific Mainz Severity Score Index (MSSI) with subscores (neurological, renal, cardiac, and general) and a Mindstreams neurocognitive battery for mild impairment, evaluating memory, executive function, attention, information processing, visual spatial processing, verbal function, and motor skills. A Global Cognitive Score (GCS) was also computed.

Results: Ten patients (3 males, 7 females) were tested (mean age 41.5, range 25–56 years). Males were younger, had moderate nephropathy and no cerebrovascular accident (CVA); their Mindstreams GCS was 85.6–107 points. Three females had mild-moderate (8,10,15 points) neurological MSSI subscores (two CVA); all females had Mindstreams GCS of 59–107.7 points. Below-average performance was prevalent, particularly in information processing and motor skills consistent with mild impairment. Average GCS in females (90.3 points) was lower than in males (98.2 points). For individual patients, performance was poorest in information processing (n=4), attention (n=2), motor skills (n=2), verbal function (n=1), and visual spatial processing (n=1).

Conclusions: MindStreams may simplify cognitive assessment monitoring in Fabry disease.
 

Background: Patient protection requires the provision of informed consent for participation in medical research. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) is frequently used for screening the capacity of research subjects to consent to participate in research.

Objectives: To evaluate the utility of the Hebrew translation of the MacCAT-CR for the assessment of capacity of patients with chronic schizophrenia to provide informed consent to participate in clinical trials.

Methods: We evaluated the translated MacCAT-CR by comparing the capacity of patients with chronic schizophrenia to provide informed consent to participate in clinical trials. The following standardized neurocognitive assessment tools were used: Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE) and Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), as well as the attending doctor’s assessment.

Results: Twenty-one patients participated. Mean MacCAT-CR score was12 ¡À 10.57 (range 0¨C32), mean FAB score was 9.9 ¡À 4.77 (range 1¨C18), mean ACE was 59.14 ¡À 16.6 (range 27¨C86) and mean doctor’s assessment was 5.24 ¡À 1.18 (range 3¨C7).

Conclusions: The Hebrew-version of the MacCAT-CR helped identify patients with the capacity to provide informed consent for participation in research. Patients with FAB scores ¡Ý 12 tended to score higher on the Hebrew-version of the MacCAT-CR, thus confirming the utility of the Hebrew version of the MacCAT-CR. During the screening process for clinical trials it may be practical to administer the concise FAB questionnaire, and then administer the MacCAT-CR only to those who scored ¡Ý 12 on the FAB.

Suicide is universal within the range of human behaviors and is not necessarily related to psychiatric morbidity, though it is considerably more prevalent among psychiatric patients. Considering the limitations of medical knowledge, psychiatrists cope with an unfounded and almost mythical perception of their ability to predict and prevent suicide. We set out to compose a position paper for the Israel Psychiatric Association (IPA) that clarifies expectations from psychiatrists when treating suicidal patients, focusing on risk assessment and boundaries of responsibility, in the era of defensive medicine. The final draft of the position paper was by consensus. The IPA Position Paper established the first standard of care concerning expectations from psychiatrists in Israel with regard to knowledge-based assessment of suicide risk, elucidation of the therapist's responsibility to the suicidal psychotic patient (defined by law) compared to patients with preserved reality testing, capacity for choice, and responsibility for their actions. Therapists will be judged for professional performance rather than outcomes and wisdom of hindsight. This paper may provide support for psychiatrists who, with clinical professionalism rather than extenuating considerations of defensive medicine, strive to save the lives of suicidal patients.
 

Background: The Beer Sheva Psoriasis Severity Score is a novel instrument for the assessment of psoriasis severity, designed for use in routine clinical conditions.

Objective: To identify the main factors of the BPSS[1].

Methods: The sample used to study the BPSS comprised 70 patients with psoriasis vulgaris treated by climatotherapy at the Dead Sea. Psoriasis severity was assessed using BPSS and PASI (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index). Factor analysis was used to identify the main factors of BPSS. Internal consistency analysis was performed. Correlation matrices were generated to compare BPSS factors.

Results: Factor analysis demonstrated that BPSS included six factors that explained 74.0% of the variance as follows: patient assessment 26.0%; physician assessment 13.2%; palms and soles involvement 11.9%; genitals, nails, and pruritus 9.0%; face involvement 7.3%; and scalp involvement 6.6%. Total scale Cronbach’s alpha was 0.76; alpha for the factors ranged between 0.39 and 0.81.

Conclusion: The major factors of BPSS were identified. BPSS may be used as a comprehensive tool for measuring psoriasis severity.

[1] BPSS = Beer Sheva Psoriasis Severity Score

Background: Falls are a common problem among hospitalized patients, having a significant impact on quality of life and resource utilization.

Objectives: To develop and validate a fall-risk assessment tool for patients hospitalized in the department of medicine that will combine simplicity with adequate accuracy for routine use.

Methods: This observational cohort study was conducted on the medical wards of an urban tertiary teaching hospital, and included all patients who fell in the medical wards during a 1 year period (n=140) compared to other hospitalized patients.

Results: Significant correlates of falls were previous falls, impairing medical conditions, impaired mobility, and altered mental state. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, only previous falls (odds ratio 3.8 with 95% confidence interval 2.65–5.45, P < 0.0001) and acute impairing medical conditions (OR[1] 1.56, CI[2] 1.06–2.29, P < 0.05) correlated independently with a higher risk for falls. Impaired mobility retained an OR of 1.46 (CI 0.95–2.24, P = 0.084). Accordingly, defining patients with either a history of previous falls or both acute impairing medical state and impaired mobility as fall-prone patients provided a sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 63%, respectively. In a subsequent prospective validation trial on 88 patients who fell during hospitalization and 436 controls, the sensitivity and specificity of this fall-risk grouping were 64% and 68% respectively.

Conclusions: Our new simple and easy-to-use fall-risk assessment tool identified most of the fall-prone patients. These findings suggest that using this tool may enable us to prevent two-thirds of falls on the medical ward by providing effective fall-prevention facilities to only one-third of the patients.

Background: Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular function includes calculation of ejection fraction and regional wall motion analysis. Recently, speckle imaging was introduced for quantification of left ventricular function.

Objectives: To assess LVEF[1] by speckle imaging and compare it with Simpson’s method, and to assess the regional LV strain obtained by speckle imaging in relation to conventional echocardiographic scores.

Methods: Thirty consecutive patients, 28 with regional LV dysfunction, underwent standard echocardiographic evaluation. LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume and EF were calculated independently by speckle imaging and Simpson’s rule. The regional peak systolic strain presented by speckle imaging as a bull's-eye map was compared with the conventional visual estimate of echo score.

Results: Average EDV[2] obtained by speckle imaging and by Simpson’s method were 85.1 vs. 92.7 ml (P = 0.38), average ESV[3] was 49.4 vs. 48.8 ml (P = 0.94), calculated EF was 43.9 vs. 50.5% (P = 0.08). The correlation rate with Simpson’s rule was high: 0.92 for EDV, 0.96 for ESV, and 0.89 for EF. The peak systolic strain in two patients without wall motion abnormality was 17.3 ± 4.7; in normal segments of patients with regional dysfunction, peak systolic strain (13.4 ± 4.9) was significantly higher than in hypokinetic segments  (10.5 ± 4.5) (P < 0.000001). The strain in hypokinetic segments was significantly higher than in akinetic segments (6.2 ± 3.6) (P < 0.000001).

Conclusions: Speckle imaging can be successfully used for the assessment of LV volumes and EF. Bull's-eye strain map, created by speckle imaging, can achieve an accurate real-time segmental wall motion analysis.

Background: Electrocardiography has a very low sensitivity in detecting dobutamine-induced myocardial ischemia.

Objectives: To assess the added diagnostic value of a new cardiac performance index (dP/dt^ejc) measurement, based on brachial artery flow changes, as compared to standard 12-lead ECG, for detecting dobutamine-nduced myocardial ischemia, using Tc99m-Sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography as the gold standard of comparison to assess the presence or absence of ischemia.

Methods: The study group comprised 40 patients undergoing Sestamibi-SPECT[1]/dobutamine stress test. Simultaneous measurements of ECG and brachial artery dP/dt^ejc were performed at each dobutamine level. In 19 of the 40 patients perfusion defects compatible with ischemia were detected on SPECT. The increase in dP/dt^ejc during infusion of dobutamine in this group was severely impaired as compared to the non-ischemic group. dP/dt^ejc outcome was combined with the ECG results, giving an ECG-enhanced value, and compared to ECG alone.

Results: The sensitivity improved dramatically from 16% to 79%, positive predictive value increased from 60% to 68% and negative predictive value from 54% to 78%, and specificity decreased from 90% to 67%.
Conclusions: If ECG alone is used for specificity, the combination with dP/dt^ejc improved the sensitivity of the test and could be a cost-savings alternative to cardiac imaging or perfusion studies to detect myocardial ischemia, especially in patients unable to exercise

Background: Measurement of function is an essential component of routine rehabilitation work (mainly for quantifying function at different phases in the rehabilitation process), rehabilitation policy (admission and discharge criteria, length of stay in rehabilitation), goal setting, and outcome measurement.

Objective: To explore the scope of the scales used for function assessment by the various disciplines of rehabilitation medicine in rehabilitation facilities.

Method: A structured questionnaire was sent to 36 rehabilitation facilities. Respondents were asked to specify the scales they use for functional assessment for each of 15 selected pathologies. Also examined were satisfaction with the scales, as well as the existence of a computerized database of routine function assessment in the facility and the willingness to create a national agreed “common data set” of the assessments.

Results: The general response rate was 86.1% (31 of 36 questionnaires were returned). For the sake of data presentation, rehabilitation facilities were classified into four categories: general, geriatric, pediatric, and community. Most facilities performed function assessment using a total of 125 scales. Heterogeneity was found between facilities and between pathologies. The highest number of scales was found in the area of neurologic pathologies. For most pathologies, assessment of impairment was used more than assessment of disability. Most facilities in the survey did not have a computerized database of function assessments.

Conclusions: A “common data set” of function assessments in everyday clinical work would ensure standardization without necessarily limiting the use of additional scales and at the same time significantly minimize the current heterogeneity.
 

Background: Hip fracture rates are increasing worldwide, and the risk for a second hip fracture is high. The decision to administer antiresorptive treatment is based mainly on bone mineral density and/or a history of previous osteoporotic fractures.

Objectives: To evaluate the contribution of BMD[1], previous fractures, clinical and laboratory parameters to hip fracture risk assessment.

Methods: The study population included 113 consecutive hip fracture patients, aged 72.5 ± 9.4 years, discharged from the Department of Orthopedic Surgery113 consecutive patients, 87 women and 26 men, aged 50-90 years, mean ag. BMD was assessed at the lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip. The results were expressed in standard deviation scores as T-scores – compared to young adults and Z-scores – compared to age-matched controls. Plasma or serum levels of parathyroid hormone, 25-hydroxyvitamin 3 and urinary deoxypyridinoline cross-links were evaluated.

Results: We observed T-scores ≤-2.5 in 43 patients (45.3%) at the lumbar spine, in 47 (52.2%) at the femoral neck and in 33 (38%) at the total hip. Twenty-eight patients (29.5%) had neither low BMD nor previous osteoporotic fractures. Using a T-score cutoff point of (-1.5) at any measurement site would put 25 (89%) of these patients into the high fracture risk group. Mean DPD level was 15.9 ± 5.8 ng/mg (normal 4–7.3 ng/mg creatinine). Vitamin D inadequacy was observed in 99% of patients.

Conclusions: Using current criteria, about one-third of elderly hip fracture patients might not have been diagnosed as being at risk. Lowering the BMD cutoff point for patients with additional risk factors may improve risk prediction yield.