Defining the domain of geriatric medicine in an urban public health system affiliated with an academic medical center

Department of Medicine, Center for Aging Research, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (Impact Factor: 4.22). 10/2008; 56(10):1802-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01941.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The American Geriatrics Society has recommended a reexamination of the roles and deployment of providers with expertise in geriatric medicine. Healthcare systems use a variety of strategies to maximize their geriatric expertise. In general, these health systems tend to focus geriatric medicine resources on a group of older adults that are locally defined as the most in need. This article describes a model of care within an academic urban public health system and describes how local characteristics interact to define the domain of geriatric medicine. This domain is defined using 4 years of data from an electronic medical record combined with data collected from clinical trials. From January 2002 to December 2005, 31,443 adults aged 65 and older were seen at any clinical site within this healthcare system. The mean age was 75 (range 65-105); 61% were women; 35% African American, and 2% Hispanic. The payer mix was 80% Medicare and 17% Medicaid. The local geriatric medicine program includes sites of care in inpatient, ambulatory, nursing home, and home-based settings. By design, this geriatric medicine clinical practice complements the care provided to older adults by the primary care practice. Primary care physicians tend to cede care to geriatric medicine for older adults with advanced disability or geriatric syndromes. This is most apparent for older adults in nursing facilities or those requiring home-based care. There is a dynamic interplay between design features, reputation, and capacity that modulates volume, location, and type of patients seen by geriatrics.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background There is a growing mandate for Family Medicine residency programs to directly assess residents’ clinical competence in Care of the Elderly (COE). The objectives of this paper are to describe the development and implementation of incremental core competencies for Postgraduate Year (PGY)-I Integrated Geriatrics Family Medicine, PGY-II Geriatrics Rotation Family Medicine, and PGY-III Enhanced Skills COE for COE Diploma residents at a Canadian University. Methods Iterative expert panel process for the development of the core competencies, with a pre-defined process for implementation of the core competencies. Results Eighty-five core competencies were selected overall by the Working Group, with 57 core competencies selected for the PGY-I/II Family Medicine residents and an additional 28 selected for the PGY-III COE residents. The core competencies follow the CanMEDS Family Medicine roles. Both sets of core competencies are based on consensus. Conclusions Due to demographic changes, it is essential that Family Physicians have the required skills and knowledge to care for the frail elderly. The core competencies described were developed for PGY-I/II Family Medicine residents and PGY-III Enhanced Skills COE, with a focus on the development of geriatric expertise for those patients that would most benefit.
    06/2014; 17(2):53-62. DOI:10.5770/cgj.17.95
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: SUMMARY Alzheimer's disease (AD) has high economic impact and places significant burden on patients, caregivers, providers and healthcare delivery systems, fostering the need for an evaluation of alternative approaches to healthcare delivery for dementia. Collaborative care models are team-based, multicomponent interventions that provide a pragmatic strategy to deliver integrated healthcare to patients and families across a wide range of populations and clinical settings. Healthcare reform and national plans for AD goals to integrate quality care, health promotion and preventive services, and reduce the impact of disease on patients and families reinforcing the need for a system-level evaluation of how to best meet the needs of patients and families. We review collaborative care models for AD and offer evidence for improved patient- and family-centered outcomes, quality indicators of care and potential cost savings.
    12/2014; 4(6):455-69. DOI:10.2217/nmt.14.47
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 10/2014; 62(10). DOI:10.1111/jgs.13020_1 · 4.22 Impact Factor