Consensus of the SEPG on XXXX in the elderly.

@entity1 @entity308
BACKGROUND: The limitation of clinical-epidemiological know-how and evidence regarding therapeutic efficiency in @entity308 among the elderly and extremely elderly @entity1 has given rise to an excessive variety of practices in clinical care of these @entity1 in the Spanish health system. The Spanish Society of Psychogeriatrics (SEPG) has raised the question of the need to unify criteria through a structured approach based on professional consensus. OBJECTIVES: To develop an expert consensus of clinical recommendations to improve the clinical treatment of @entity308 in elderly @entity1 in Spain, sponsored by the Spanish Society of Psychogeriatrics (SEPG). METHODS: Modified Delphi Consensus, in two rounds. The study was conducted in four phases: 1) constitution of a Scientific Committee, project promoter and responsible for bibliographic review and formulation of recommendations for discussion 2) constitution of a multicenter Panel of Experts with representatives from this specialist field 3) postal survey comprised of two rounds, with interim processing of opinions and a report for the experts and 4) discussion of results during an on-site meeting of the Scientific Committee. RESULTS: The survey evaluation was completed by 61 experts consulted, in two rounds. In the first round, consensus was reached in 39 of the 54 questions analyzed. Following interaction by the panel, this consensus was increased to a total of 46 survey items (85% of the proposed contents). It was impossible to obtain a sufficiently unanimous consensus on the remaining 8 questions, either due to differences of opinion among the professionals or a lack of established criterion in most of the experts. CONCLUSIONS: A full list of criteria and clinical recommendations for the purpose of rationalizing the treatment of @entity308 in elderly @entity1 and reducing excessive variability in clinical practice is presented. The recommendations are qualified in accordance with the degree of consensus of the professionals endorsing them and can be considered valid until new scientific information becomes available that justifies their review.
