BackgroundFrail seniors often receive ineffective care, which does not meet their needs. It is still unclear how healthcare systems should be redesigned to be more sensitive to the needs and values of frail seniors and their caregivers. We thus aimed to describe key stakeholders’ perspectives on the current healthcare and services available to frail seniors.MethodsIn this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 42 frail seniors, caregivers, clinicians, or healthcare administrators/decision makers involved in frail senior care from five Canadian provinces. We explored participants’ perspectives on the quality of care and services for frail seniors. We used an inductive/deductive thematic data analysis approach based on the Square-of-Care model, including emerging themes using the constant comparison method.ResultsWe grouped participants’ perspectives into strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement, and then into nine themes: care processes, continuity of care, social frailty, access to healthcare and services, models of healthcare delivery, cost of care, healthcare staff management and professional development of healthcare providers, material resources and environmental design of healthcare facilities, and coordination of care. Our findings suggest redesigning assessment, communication with frail seniors and their caregivers, targeting care and services to the needs, and integrating care better across settings and in time.ConclusionsA systematic identification of frail older people is the first step to adapt healthcare systems to this population’s needs. Participation of frail older people and their caregivers to decision making would also allow choosing care plans meeting their care goals. The integration of care and services across settings, over time, and with various providers, is also needed to meet frail senior needs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0969-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDepression and anxiety remain under-diagnosed and under-treated in those with neurologic diseases such as dementia or Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Our objectives were to first, to provide a synthesis of high quality guidelines available for the identification and management of depression or anxiety in those with dementia or PD. Second, to identify areas for improvement for future guidelines.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE (2009 to July 24, 2015), grey literature (83 sources; July 24-Sept 6, 2015), and bibliographies of included studies. Included studies were evaluated for quality by four independent reviewers the AGREE II tool. Guideline characteristics, statements and recommendations relevant to depression or anxiety for dementia and PD were then extracted. (PROSPERO CRD: 42016014584)Results8121 citations were reviewed with 31 full text articles included for assessment with the AGREE II tool. 17 were of sufficient quality for inclusion. Mean overall quality scores were between 4.25 to 6.5. Domain scores were lowest in the areas of stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence.Recommendations for the screening and diagnosis of depression were found for PD and dementia. There was little evidence to guide diagnosis or management of anxiety. Non-pharmacologic therapies were recommended for dementia patients. Most advocated pharmacologic treatment for depression, for both PD and dementia, but did not specify an agent due to lack of evidence.ConclusionsThe available recent high quality guidelines outline several recommendations for the management of comorbid depression or anxiety in PD or dementia. However there remain significant gaps in the evidence.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12883-016-0754-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Gaps in CVD risk management were found and highlight the need for quality improvements. Key targets for improvement include coordination of CVD care between rheumatology and primary care, and communication of increased CVD risk in RA.

No abstract

No abstract