Skip to main content
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners logoLink to The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
. 1989 Apr;39(321):142–144.

Attitudes and practices of the primary health care team towards assessing the very elderly.

J Tremellen, D A Jones
PMCID: PMC1711830  PMID: 2559987

Abstract

This paper investigates the attitudes and practices of members of the primary care team towards assessing the very elderly in the community. Using self-completion questionnaires 47 general practitioners, 24 health visitors and 22 community nurses in the Bath health district were asked if they felt over 75 year olds should be assessed, and if so who should do it, and what the assessment should include. A majority of all three groups of professionals considered it important to assess the over 75 year olds and that this should be done at home. They felt that such an assessment should be functionally oriented, that is, should concentrate on the activities of daily living rather than medical problems. None of the groups felt assessment was their sole responsibility but should be undertaken by a combination of members of the primary health care team with the health visitor playing a prominent role. Although 89% of all the respondents felt that health visitors should be involved in assessing the elderly, half of the health visitors felt their work should be mainly concerned with 0-5 year olds. In the absence of any general policy few assessment schemes exist in the district. An overall policy is required and this should be reflected in the training of each of the professional groups.

Full text

PDF
142

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ford G., Taylor R. The elderly as underconsulters: a critical reappraisal. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 May;35(274):244–247. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Freer C. B. Geriatric screening: a reappraisal of preventive strategies in the care of the elderly. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 Jun;35(275):288–290. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hendriksen C., Lund E., Strømgård E. Consequences of assessment and intervention among elderly people: a three year randomised controlled trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Dec 1;289(6457):1522–1524. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6457.1522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Luker K. A. Health visiting and the elderly. Midwife Health Visit Community Nurse. 1979 Nov;15(11):457–459. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Vetter N. J., Jones D. A., Victor C. R. Effect of health visitors working with elderly patients in general practice: a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Feb 4;288(6414):369–372. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6414.369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. WILLIAMSON J., STOKOE I. H., GRAY S., FISHER M., SMITH A., MCGHEE A., STEPHENSON E. OLD PEOPLE AT HOME. THEIR UNREPORTED NEEDS. Lancet. 1964 May 23;1(7343):1117–1120. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(64)91803-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Webster S. G. What is a good GP? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Nov 22;293(6558):1351–1352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6558.1351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES