Cited by 75Frailty in Older AdultsNutrition and Health in AgingPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

How to Implement a Geriatric Assessment in Your Clinical Practice

Open access
Sattar, Schroder, Alibhai, Shabbir M.H., Wildiers, Hans, Puts, Martine T.E.·2014·The Oncologist

Abstract

Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Other health conditions, changes in functional status, and use of multiple medications change the risks and benefits of cancer treatment for older adults. Several international organizations, such as the International Society of Geriatric Oncology, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, recommend the conduct of a geriatric assessment (GA) for older adults with cancer to help select the most appropriate treatment and identify any underlying undetected medical, functional, and psychosocial issues that can interfere with treatment. The aim of this review is to describe what a GA is and how to implement it in daily clinical practice for older adults with cancer in the oncology setting. We provide an overview of commonly used tools. Key considerations in performing the GA include the resources available (staff, space, and time), patient population (who will be assessed), what GA tools to use, and clinical follow-up (who will be responsible for using the GA results for developing care plans and who will provide follow-up care). Important challenges in implementing GA in clinical practice include not having easy and timely access to geriatric expertise, patient burden of the additional hospital visits, and establishing collaboration between the GA team and oncologists regarding expectations of the population referred for GA and expected outcomes of the GA. Finally, we provide some possible interventions for problems identified during the GA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0180

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 164 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sattar, S., Alibhai, S. M. H., Wildiers, H., & Puts, M. T. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Puts, Martine T.E.
Venue
The Oncologist
Published
2014-09-03
Volume
19
Issue
10
Pages
1056-1068
ISSN
  • 1083-7159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-490X
OpenAlex
W2123662332
Cited by
75
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Oncologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
geriatric assessment, elderly cancer patients, geriatric oncology, geriatric assessment tools, clinical implementation, functional status, polypharmacy, treatment selection, care planning, multidisciplinary collaboration, psychosocial assessment
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Humans, Neoplasms, Nutritional Status, Social Class, Syndrome, Geriatric Assessment, Frail Elderly, Polypharmacy, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review