An integrative review on screening for frailty in acute care: Accuracy, barriers to implementation and adoption strategies

Exploring perceptions of frailty, resilience, and self-efficacy in older adults and caregivers in acute care context

This study aimed to explore the experience and perceptions of frailty in hospitalized older adults and caregivers caring for older adults, in relation to resilience and self-efficacy. A qualitative explorative descriptive study design was utilized. Face to face interviews were conducted from September 2020 to July 2021 with 24 older adults who were 65 years and above and hospitalized in the acute care hospital. Ten informal family caregivers were also recruited. Data were analysed using an inductive content analysis approach. Frailty encompassed physical elements as well as manifestations of psychological traits, fear of the unknown, and being in control. Resilience was determined by individual psychological traits and mindset, and the possession of a coping mechanism. Self-efficacy could influence both frailty and resilience through inner motivation and assistance received. Older adults and family caregivers reported that considerable decline in physical health with age and level of perseverance can determine the level of frailty. Resilience and self-efficacy play a pivotal role in the context of frailty. Understanding resilience in this context will assist nurses to facilitate the use of individual and sociocultural resources to improve the way resilience is experienced by older adults. Various coping strategies can enhance self-efficacy and build greater resilience in older adults, including maintaining their active involvement in health management and social life.

Core requirements of frailty screening in the emergency department: an international Delphi consensus study

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study.

METHODS

A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors.

RESULTS

In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice.

Facilitators and Barriers to Nurses Screening for Frailty in Acute Care in a Provincial Health-Care System: a Survey Study Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

Older adults living with frailty represent the largest population of hospitalized patients in Canada, but they do not always receive the quality of care needed. Nurses are well-positioned to screen for frailty, but current frailty screening practices are poorly understood.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted over a six-week period with nurses from Alberta, Canada working in acute care with older adults. Demographics were descriptively reported. Frailty screening methods were quantified on 5-point frequency scales, reported descriptively and compared by practice area using linear regression. The top-five mean scores from a 43-item, 6-point Likert-type questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were compared by practice area.

Results

Frailty screening by clinical impression was "usually" used (median = 4, IQR = 4-5), while tools were "rarely" used (median = 2, IQR = 1-3). Medical and/or surgical nursing had higher general frailty screening tool use (β = 0.81, r = .31, p < .001), but no significant (p > .05) differences for using clinical impression, or preference of screening method. The top facilitator was the disbelief that frailty screening negatively impacts relationships with older adults. The top barrier was belief that conducting frailty screening was routine. Nursing practice area influenced frailty screening beliefs.

Conclusions

There is an opportunity to implement frailty screening tools into the nursing practice of Alberta' nurses working in acute care. Frailty screening tools that become routine have greater likelihood for utilization. Nursing practice areas may have unique situations that require tailored approached to tool implementation.

Integrating the clinical frailty scale with emergency department triage systems for elder patients: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study investigated whether integrating the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) with a triage system would improve triage for older adult emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

We enrolled ED patients aged 65 years or older at 5 study sites in Taiwan between December 2020 and April 2021. All eligible patients were assigned a triage level by using the Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale (TTAS) in accordance with usual practice. A CFS score was collected from them. The primary outcome was critical events, defined as ICU admission or in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were ED medical expenditures, number of orders in the ED, and length of hospital stay (LOS). We applied a reclassification concept and integrated the CFS and TTAS to create the Triage Frailty Acuity Scale (TFAS). We compared the outcomes achieved between the TTAS and TFAS.

RESULTS

Of 1023 screened ED patients, 890 were enrolled. The majority were assigned to TTAS level 3 (73.26%) and had CFS scores of 4 to 9 (55.96%). The primary outcomes were better predicted by the TFAS than the TTAS (area under the curve [AUC] 0.82 vs. 064). Using multivariable approach, TTAS level 1 (odds ratio [OR], 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-13.4) and CFS score (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.9-17.2) were significantly associated with the primary outcomes. For older adults at the highest triage level, the TFAS was not associated with an increase in the primary outcomes compared with the TTAS; however, the TFAS was associated with a significant decrease in the number of older ED patients assigned to triage levels 3 to 5. In addition, TFAS had a longer average LOS but did not have a higher average number of orders or ED medical expenditures compared to TTAS.

CONCLUSIONS

The TFAS identified more older ED patients who had been triaged as less emergent but proceeded to need ICU admission or in-hospital death. Incorporating the CFS into triage may reduce the under-triage of older adults in the ED.

Using EHR Data to Identify Patient Frailty and Risk for ICU Transfer

The predictive properties of four definitions of a frailty risk score (FRS) constructed using combinations of nursing flowsheet data, laboratory tests, and ICD-10 codes were examined for time to first intensive care unit (ICU) transfer in medical-surgical inpatients ≥50 years of age. Cox regression modeled time to first ICU transfer and Schemper-Henderson explained variance summarized predictive accuracy of FRS combinations. Modeling by age group and controlling for sex, all FRS measures significantly predicted time to first ICU transfer. Further multivariable modeling controlling for clinical characteristics substantially improved predictive accuracy. The effect of frailty on time to first ICU transfer depended on age, with highest risk in 50 to <60 years and ≥80 years age groups. Frailty prevalence ranged from 25.1% to 56.4%. Findings indicate that FRS-based frailty is a risk factor for time to first ICU transfer and should be considered in assessment and care-planning to address frailty in high-risk patients.Frailty prevalence was highest med-surg pts 60 to <70 years (56%); highest risk for time to first ICU transfer was in younger (50 to <60 years) and older (≥80 years) groups.

Sensitivity and specificity of three screening tools for frailty in hospitalized older adults

AIM

To determine the test accuracy, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under curve, of three frailty screening tools in identifying the risk of frail outcomes among hospitalized older patients.

DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal study.

METHODS

The screening tools [Frail-PPS (Frail-Physical, Psychological and Social), Frailty Assessment Measure (FAM), and Identification of seniors at-risk hospitalized patients (ISAR-HP)] were administered by ward nurses to patients aged 65 years and older within 24 h of admission to an acute hospital. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under curve analysis of the three tools in the context of three frail outcomes, (a) functional decline at three months after discharge-defined as a decline of at least one point on the Katz Index, (ii) requiring a full-time caregiver upon discharge, and (iii) death by three months after discharge, was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 366 patients enrolled in the study, 78 (21.3%) experienced one or more frail outcomes, with 65 (17.76%) experiencing functional decline, 61 (16.67%) requiring a full-time caregiver upon discharge and 8 (2.19%) dying by three months. Frail-PPS had sensitivity 12.5% to 31.4% and specificity 91.2% to 94.8%, varying by the considered frail outcome. Similarly, FAM had sensitivity 12.5% to 29.4% and specificity 90.9% to 94.1%, and ISAR-HP had sensitivity 2.9% to 19.2% and specificity 92.2% to 99.1%. positive predictive value of the FAM, Frail-PPS and ISAR-HP ranged from 3.0 to 45.5%, 3.1 to 50.0% and 3.9 to 23.6% respectively, while their negative predictive value ranged from 87.1% to 97.9%, 87.7% to 97.9% and 92.2% to 99.4% respectively. The area under curve values were moderate for the Frail-PPS (0.56 to 0.75), FAM (0.58 to 0.70) and ISAR-HP (0.71 to 0.77) for the three outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

With high specificity and negative predictive values, as well as low sensitivity, FAM and Frail-PPS may be beneficial in identifying older individuals who are not frail, minimizing unnecessary further assessment and intervention.

Elderly Outcomes After Hospitalization: The Hospital Frailty Risk Score Applied on the French Health Data Hub

Objectives: To demonstrate the association between the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) and 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission and length of stay (LOS) in France. Methods: Logistic regressions were performed using data recorded in the French national health data system ( SNDS) for elderly patients (≥75 years old) hospitalized in France in 2017. Results: Over the 1,111,090 patients included, 30-day mortality was associated with the HFRS: adjusted OR (aOR) for an intermediate HFRS (5–15 points) was 1.91 [95% confidence interval (95% IC); 1.87–1.95] and aOR 2.57 [95% IC; 2.50–2.64] for high HFRS (>15 points), as compared to low HFRS (<5 points). LOS >10 days increased with the HFRS (aOR = 1.36 [95% IC; 1.34–1.38] for an intermediate HFRS and aOR 1.51 [95% IC; 1.48–1.54] for a high HFRS). A high HFRS was associated with 30-day hospital readmission (aOR = 1.06 [95% IC; 1.04–1.08]). Discussion: This real-life analysis of in- and out-patient healthcare pathways confirmed the HFRS’s ability to predict adverse outcomes, after adjustment on social deprivation.

[Frailty in primary care: Diagnosis and multidisciplinary management]

El envejecimiento poblacional se asocia a un mayor uso de recursos sociales sanitarios, asociados a la mayor morbimortalidad y discapacidad de este grupo etario. La fragilidad es un síndrome geriátrico previo a la aparición de la dependencia funcional, que permite la identificación de individuos de mayor riesgo de dependencia, institucionalización, efectos adversos de fármacos, mortalidad y otros eventos negativos de salud. Este síndrome es potencialmente reversible con una intervención multicomponente. La atención primaria de salud es el lugar preferente para el diagnóstico y seguimiento de la fragilidad, a través de escalas como la FRAIL scale, el fenotipo de Fried o modelos de acumulación de déficits. Para el seguimiento se precisa la intervención multidimensional y coordinada de diferentes profesionales sanitarios y sociales, con la implicación del paciente y su familia. Se debe fomentar la investigación para determinar las intervenciones más eficaces y los cursos clínicos más frecuentes.

Perspectives of older adults, caregivers, healthcare providers on frailty screening in primary care: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Background

Screening is often recommended as a first step in frailty management. Many guidelines call to implicate frailty screening into practice in the primary care setting. However, few countries or organizations implement it. Understanding and clarifying the stakeholders’ views and issues faced by the implementation is essential to the successful implementation of frailty screening. However, the systematic review on stakeholders’ views of frailty screening in primary care is decidedly limited. Our objective was to explore the perspective of older adults, caregivers, and healthcare providers on frailty screening and determine the enablers and barriers to implementing frailty screening in primary care.

Methods

A systematic search of six databases and other resources was conducted following JBI’s three-step search strategy. The search resulted in 7362 articles, of which 97 were identified for further assessment according to the inclusion criteria. After the full-text screening, quality assessment and data extraction were carried out using the tools from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Moreover, reviewers used the approach of meta-aggregative of JBI to analyze data and synthesis the findings.

Results

Six studies were included. A total of 63 findings were aggregated into 12 categories and then further grouped into three synthesized findings:1) capacity of healthcare providers and older adults; 2) opportunity in the implementation of frailty screening; 3) motivation in the implementation of frailty screening. These themes can help identify what influences the implementation of screening from the perspective of stakeholders.

Conclusions

This meta-synthesis provides evidence on the barriers and enablers of frailty screening in primary care, from the aspects of psychological, physical, social, material, etc. However, stakeholder perspectives of frailty screening have not been adequately studied. More research and efforts are needed to explore the influencing factors and address the existing barriers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03173-6.

Perspectives on frailty screening, management and its implementation among acute care providers in Singapore: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has reminded how older adults with frailty are particularly exposed to adverse outcomes. In the acute care setting, consideration of evidence-based practice related to frailty screening and management is needed to improve the care provided to aging populations. It is important to assess for frailty in acute care so as to establish treatment priorities and goals for the individual. Our study explored understanding on frailty and practice of frailty screening among different acute care professionals in Singapore, and identify barriers and facilitators concerning frailty screening and its implementation.

METHODS

A qualitative study using focus group discussion among nurses and individual interviews among physicians from four departments (Accident & Emergency, Anesthesia, General Surgery, Orthopedics) in three acute hospitals from the three public health clusters in Singapore. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling of specific clinicians seeing a high proportion of older patients at the hospitals. Thematic analysis of the data was performed using NVIVO 12.0.

RESULTS

Frailty was mainly but inadequately understood as a physical and age-related concept. Screening for frailty in acute care was considered important to identify high risk patients, to implement targeted treatment and care, and to support decision making and prognosis estimation. Specific issues related to screening, management and implementation were identified: cooperation from patient/caregivers, acceptance from healthcare workers/hospital managers, need for dedicated resources, guidelines for follow-up management and consensus on the scope of measurement for different specialties.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated the need for 1) frailty-related education program for patients/care givers and stakeholders 2) inter-professional collaboration to develop integrated approach for screening and management of hospital patients with frailty and 3) hospital-wide consensus to adopt a common frailty screening tool.

Frailty and In-Hospital Mortality Risk Using EHR Nursing Data

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate four definitions of a Frailty Risk Score (FRS) derived from EHR data that includes combinations of biopsychosocial risk factors using nursing flowsheet data or International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes and blood biomarkers and its predictive properties for in-hospital mortality in adults ≥50 years admitted to medical-surgical units. Methods In this retrospective observational study and secondary analysis of an EHR dataset, survival analysis and Cox regression models were performed with sociodemographic and clinical covariates. Integrated area under the ROC curve (iAUC) across follow-up time based on Cox modeling was estimated. Results The 46,645 patients averaged 1.5 hospitalizations (SD = 1.1) over the study period and 63.3% were emergent admissions. The average age was 70.4 years (SD = 11.4), 55.3% were female, 73.0% were non-Hispanic White (73.0%), mean comorbidity score was 3.9 (SD = 2.9), 80.5% were taking 1.5 high risk medications, and 42% recorded polypharmacy. The best performing FRS-NF-26-LABS included nursing flowsheet data and blood biomarkers (Adj. HR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.28, 1.33]), with good accuracy (iAUC = .794); the reduced model with age, sex, and FRS only demonstrated similar accuracy. The poorest performance was the ICD-10 code-based FRS. Conclusion The FRS captures information about the patient that increases risk for in-hospital mortality not accounted for by other factors. Identification of frailty enables providers to enhance various aspects of care, including increased monitoring, applying more intensive, individualized resources, and initiating more informed discussions about treatments and discharge planning.

The opinions and experiences of nurses on frailty screening among older hospitalized patients. An exploratory study

Background

Routine screening for frailty at admission by nurses may be useful to detect geriatric risks and problems at an early stage. However, the added value of this screening is not clear yet. Information about the opinions and attitudes of nurses towards this screening is also lacking. As they have a crucial role in conducting this screening, an exploratory study was performed to examine hospital nurses’ opinions and perspectives about this screening and how it influences their daily work.

Methods

A qualitative, exploratory approach was employed, using semi-structured interviews with 13 nurses working on different general medical wards (surgical and internal medicine) in three Dutch hospitals. Frailty screening had been implemented for several years in these hospitals.

Results

The participating nurses reported that frailty screening can be useful to structure their work, create more awareness of frail older patients and as starting point for pro-active nursing care. At the same time, they assess their clinical view as more important than the results of a standard screening tool. The nurses hardly used the overall screening scores, but were particularly interested in information regarding specific items, such as delirium or fall risk. Screening results are partly embedded systematically and in daily nursing care, e.g., in team briefings or during transfer of patients to other wards. The majority of the nurses had received little training about the background of frailty screening and the use of screening tools.

Conclusions

Most nurses stated that frailty screening tools are helpful in daily practice. However, nurses did not use the frailty screening tools in the referred way; tools were particularly used to evaluate patients on separate items of the tool instead of the summative score of the tool. When frailty screening tools are implemented in daily practice, training needs to be focused on. Additional research in this field is necessary to gain more insight into nurses’ opinions on frailty screening.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02586-z.

Hospital Readmission Outcomes by Frailty Risk in Adults in Behavioral Health Acute Care

The purpose of the current retrospective study was to determine whether frailty is predictive of 30-day readmission in adults aged ≥50 years who were admitted with a psychiatric diagnosis to a behavioral health hospital from 2013 to 2017. A total of 1,063 patients were included. A 26-item frailty risk score (FRS-26-ICD) was constructed from electronic health record (EHR) data. There were 114 readmissions. Cox regression modeling for demographic characteristics, emergent admission, comorbidity, and FRS-26-ICD determined prediction of time to readmission was modest (incremental area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.671). The FRS-26-ICD was a significant predictor of readmission alone and in models with demographics and emergent admission; however, only the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index was significantly related to hazard of readmission adjusting for other factors (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [1.17, 1.37]; p < 0.001), whereas FRS-26-ICD became non-significant. Frailty is a relevant syndrome in behavioral health that should be further studied in risk prediction and incorporated into care planning to prevent hospital readmissions. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, xx(x), xx-xx.].

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of FRAIL-NH in Hospitalized Older Persons: An Exploratory Study

OBJECTIVES

The FRAIL-NH was originally developed for frailty assessment of nursing home (NH) residents. We aimed to compare concurrent, predictive, and known-groups validity between FRAIL-NH and FRAIL, using the Frailty Index (FI) as gold standard reference. We also examined for ceiling effect of both measures in the detection of severe frailty.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Older adults (mean age 89.4 years) hospitalized for an acute medical illness in a 1300-bed tertiary hospital.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline data on demographics, comorbidities, severity of illness, functional status, and cognitive status were gathered. We also captured outcomes of mortality, length of stay (LOS), institutionalization, and functional decline. For concurrent validity, we compared areas under the operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for both measures against the FI. For predictive validity, univariate analyses and multiple logistic regression were used to compare both measures against the adverse outcomes of interest. For known-groups validity, we compared both measures against comorbidities and functional status via 1-way analysis of variance, and dementia diagnosis via independent t test. Box plots were also derived to investigate for possible ceiling effect.

RESULTS

Both measures had good concurrent validity (both AUC > 0.8 and P < .001), with FRAIL-NH detecting more frailty cases (79.5% vs 50.0%). Although FRAIL-frail was superior for in-hospital mortality [6.7% vs 1.0%, P = .031, odds ratio (OR) 9.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-79.20, P < .042] and LOS (10 vs 8 days, P = .043), FRAIL-NH-frail better predicted mortality (OR 6.62, 95% CI 1.91-22.94, P = .003) and institutionalization (OR 6.03, 95% CI 2.01-18.09, P = .001) up to 12 months postenrollment. Known-groups validity was good for both measures with FRAIL-NH yielding greater F values for functional status and dementia. Lastly, box plots revealed a ceiling effect for FRAIL in the severely frail group.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This exploratory study highlights the potential for expanding the role of FRAIL-NH beyond NH to acute care settings. Contrasted to FRAIL, FRAIL-NH had better overall validity with less ceiling effect in discrimination of severe frailty.

Comparison of a Frailty Risk Score and Comorbidity Indices for Hospital Readmission Using Electronic Health Record Data

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the predictive properties of five definitions of a frailty risk score (FRS) and three comorbidity indices using data from electronic health records (EHRs) of hospitalized adults aged ≥50 years for 3-day, 7-day, and 30-day readmission, and to identify an optimal model for a FRS and comorbidity combination. Retrospective analysis of the EHR dataset was performed, and multivariable logistic regression and area under the curve (AUC) were used to examine readmission for frailty and comorbidity. The sample (N = 55,778) was mostly female (53%), non-Hispanic White (73%), married (53%), and on Medicare (55%). Mean FRSs ranged from 1.3 (SD = 1.5) to 4.3 (SD = 2.1). FRS and comorbidity were independently associated with readmission. Predictive accuracy for FRS and comorbidity combinations ranged from AUC of 0.75 to 0.77 (30-day readmission) to 0.84 to 0.85 (3-day readmission). FRS and comorbidity combinations performed similarly well, whereas comorbidity was always independently associated with readmission. FRS measures were more associated with 30-day readmission than 7-day and 3-day readmission. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 14(2), 91-103.].

Promotion of mobility among hospitalised older adults: An exploratory study on perceptions of patients, carers and nurses

BACKGROUND

Hospitalisation of an older adult due to acute medical illness can result in adverse events and accelerate loss of independence despite recovery from the illness. Promoting mobility during hospitalisation can help to mitigate the risks of functional decline. Understanding the perspectives on the barriers and the maintenance of mobility is essential in the development of effective strategies.

AIMS

To explore the perceptions of patients and their carers, as well as the nurses on promotion of mobility among hospitalised adult older patients.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study design with purposive and convenience sampling approach was undertaken. A total of fourteen patients, six carers and ten nurses from a general medical ward of an acute care tertiary public hospital in Singapore were recruited over the period of November 2017 to February 2018. Face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio-recorded. The interview transcripts were coded and an inductive content analysis approach was adopted to generate categories of sub-themes and themes through the open coding process.

RESULTS

Four main themes were generated: (1) perceived and induced fear of falling; (2) challenges in initiation of mobility; (3) influence of premorbid status and physical condition on activity level; and (4) strategies to promote mobility.

CONCLUSION

Recognition of the importance of mobility as well as the detrimental effects of prolonged bed rest during hospitalization is an essential first step toward developing successful interventions to promote mobility in the Asian context. Improvements need to be made to help overcome the various barriers and challenges in the mobilization of the older patients in the acute care settings. Nurses and other members of the care team can help to increase the confidence of patients and among family carers (in providing assistance during mobility) by role modelling and provision of walking aids as well as risk-based education.