Key result
POPS service shows similar length of stay vs historical controls despite higher baseline risk.
Why the study?
As increasing numbers of older people consider surgery, evaluating services that align treatments with patient values and goals is needed.
Does a Perioperative care of Older Patients (POPS) service improve postoperative and patient-reported outcomes in older, frail patients considering surgery?
Observational (n=128)
No
Does a Perioperative care of Older Patients (POPS) service improve postoperative and patient-reported outcomes in older, frail patients considering surgery?
A perioperative care service for older patients managed a highly multimorbid and frail population, with half choosing non-surgical management and high patient satisfaction despite elevated perioperative risk.
Urges heightened perioperative vigilance for delirium in geriatric patients; leaves open value of specialized co-management pending RCT confirmation.
Background/Objectives: As mounting numbers of older people consider surgery, the importance of aligning treatments with patient values and goals is paramount. This has led to the growth of POPS (Perioperative care of Older Patients) services internationally and across Australia. An observational pilot evaluation of the Melbourne Health POPS service was conducted throughout 2022, with the aims of describing the population, measuring patient-reported outcomes and comparing postoperative outcomes to a matched historical cohort. Methods: Data were sourced from clinical review, electronic medical records and health intelligence. Patients who pursued surgery were matched 2:1 with a 2020 control cohort on up to 10 characteristics ranked on clinical judgement. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at 3 months post-surgery or at the clinic in consenting participants. Results: There were 128 participants, of whom 64 (50%) pursued non-surgical management. Participants were older (median 79 [13] years), frail (median CFS 5 [2]), and multimorbid (median CCI 5 [2.25]). Despite increased perioperative risk amongst the POPS surgical group (ASA-4 23.4% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), increased incidence of postoperative delirium (15% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.042) and ICU admission (21.7% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.006) compared to the control group, median length of stay was similar (4.3 [6.7] vs. 4.3 [5.1] days, p = 0.537). Patient-reported outcomes were similar between surgical and non-surgical POPS groups (90.7% vs. 88.1% would make the same surgical decision, p = 0.697). Conclusions: Patients attending POPS were multimorbid with geriatric syndromes and elevated perioperative risk. A high proportion pursued non-operative care. Patient-reported feedback was high with low decisional regret.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aitken et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Older patients considering surgery (n=128). Perioperative care of Older Patients (POPS) service vs. Matched historical cohort was evaluated on Median length of stay (days) (p=0.537). The Perioperative care of Older Patients (POPS) service yielded a similar median length of stay (4.3 vs. 4.3 days, p=0.537) compared to a historical cohort, despite higher baseline risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: