Role of the community pharmacist in detecting frailty and spatio-temporal disorientation among community-dwelling older people in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many older community-dwelling subjects may be frail and/or disoriented, putting them at risk of adverse outcomes. We investigated the prevalence of frailty and spatiotemporal disorientation among patients aged > 65 years collecting regular medication at a community pharmacy. Methods Prospective, cross-sectional study of geriatric evaluation in 218 community pharmacies in France. Regular customers aged > 65 years attending the pharmacy to receive ≥ 1 prescription drug were eligible. Spatio-temporal disorientation was assessed using a 4-item screening test; subjects were considered disoriented if they had ≥ 1 incorrect answers. Frailty was evaluated using the Short Emergency Geriatric Assessment (SEGA) grid. Subjects were considered as not frail (score < 8), or frail/very frail (score of 8 or more). Results 4090 subjects were included, average age 77.5 ± 7.6 years, 60.1% females. Overall, 1025 (25%) were frail/very frail, and 384 (9.4%) were disoriented in space or time. On average, subjects were taking 5.4 ± 3.5 medications per day. Among non-frail patients, 116/3065 (3.8%) were disoriented, of whom 87 (87/116, 75%) managed their medication alone. Among frail/very frail patients, 268/1025 (26.1%) were disoriented, of whom 46 (46/268, 16.8%) managed their medication alone. The majority of patients (77.9%) collected their medication alone at the pharmacy, but significantly fewer frail patients came to collect their drugs alone (p < 0.001). Conclusion It is feasible for community pharmacists to detect disorientation and frailty among older patients. A quarter of subjects were frail/very frail, and 3.2% were disoriented yet managing their drugs alone. Additional social support should be envisaged for these subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".