Supplementary file 1_Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management in primary care: a systematic literature review with a descriptive mapping of team composition and assessment instruments.docx

IntroductionComprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Management (CGAM) is a multidimensional, interdisciplinary diagnostic process to create a coordinated care plan for vulnerable older adults by addressing their medical, psychological, and functional needs. This systematic review examines randomized trials comparing CGAM with standard care or alternative interventions for older individuals in primary care focusing on how CGAM is operationalized through professional team composition and assessment instruments rather than on effectiveness outcomes alone.
MethodsA search across databases identified 3,112 studies, leading to 31 studies being included in the literature review. Eligible studies generally included participants aged 65 years and older. Across all included studies the mean age of participants was above 70 years.
ResultsThe findings show a considerable variation in team composition and assessment instruments. While this heterogeneity reflects contextual adaptability, it also highlights the lack of shared standards for CGAM implementation in primary care. Most teams consisted of three to five members. The most frequently involved professionals were nurses/licensed practical nurses (n = 27 studies), geriatricians (n = 21), and social workers (n = 14). General practitioners were involved in more than half of the included studies. Different assessment instruments employed in the studies addressed multiple dimensions of older adults’ health, including physical, cognitive, emotional, and social functions.
DiscussionThe variability in team composition and assessment instruments highlights the adaptability of CGAM across healthcare settings, emphasizing the need to balance standardization with the flexibility required to meet users’ needs and available resources. Based on the available evidence, future CGAM research and practice should prioritize the definition of core team components, the harmonization of assessment domains and instruments, and the development of implementation-ready models that balance standardization with local flexibility.