Patient Versus Physician Perceptions of Frailty: A Comparison of Clinical Frailty Scale Scores of Older Adults in the Emergency Department

Hospital-Based Health Professionals' Perceptions of Frailty in Older People

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a high prevalence of frailty amongst older patients in hospital settings. Frailty guidelines exist but implementation to date has been challenging. Understanding health professional attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about frailty is critical in understanding barriers and enablers to guideline implementation, and the aim of this study was to understand these in rehabilitation multidisciplinary teams in hospital settings.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Twenty-three semistructured interviews were conducted with health professionals working in multidisciplinary teams on geriatric and rehabilitation wards in Adelaide and Sydney, Australia. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded by 2 researchers. A codebook was created and interviews were recoded and applied to the Framework Method of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three domains were developed: diagnosing frailty, communicating about frailty, and managing frailty. Within these domains, 8 themes were identified: (1) diagnosing frailty has questionable benefits, (2) clinicians don't use frailty screening tools, (3) frailty can be diagnosed on appearance and history, (4) frailty has a stigma, (5) clinicians don't use the word "frail" with patients, (6) frailty isn't always reversible, (7) there is a lack of continuity of care after acute admission, and (8) the community setting lacks resources.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of frailty guidelines will remain challenging while staff avoid using the term "frail," don't perceive benefit of using screening tools, and focus on the individual aspects of frailty rather than the syndrome holistically. Clinical champions and education about frailty identification, reversibility, management, and communication techniques may improve the implementation of frailty guidelines in hospitals.

Older people's goals of care in relation to frailty status-the COOP-study

BACKGROUND

Literature relating older people's goals of care to their varying frailty status is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate goals of care in case of acute and/or severe disease in relationship to frailty status among the general older population.

METHOD

Older people aged ≥70 in the Netherlands completed a questionnaire. They were divided into three subgroups based on a self-reported Clinical Frailty Scale: fit (CFS 1-3), mildly frail (CFS 4-5) and severely frail (CFS 6-8). Seven goals were graded as unimportant (1-5), somewhat important (6-7) or very important (8-10): extending life, preserving quality of life (QoL), staying independent, relieving symptoms, supporting others, preventing hospital admission and preventing nursing home admission.

RESULTS

Of the 1,278 participants (median age 76 years, 63% female), 57% was fit, 32% mildly frail and 12% severely frail. Overall, participants most frequently considered preventing nursing home admission as very important (87%), followed by staying independent (84%) and preserving QoL (83%), and least frequently considered extending life as very important (31%). All frailty subgroups reported similar preferences out of the surveyed goals as the overall study population. However, participants with a higher frailty status attached slightly less importance to each individual goal compared with fit participants (Ptrend-values ≤ 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Preferred goals of care are not related to frailty status, while the importance ascribed to individual goals is slightly lower with higher frailty status. Future research should prioritise outcomes related to the shared goals of fit, mildly frail and severely frail older people to improve personalised medicine for older patients.

Clinical Frailty Scale at presentation to the emergency department: interrater reliability and use of algorithm-assisted assessment

PURPOSE

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) allows health care providers to quickly stratify older patients, to support clinical decision-making. However, few studies have evaluated the CFS interrater reliability (IRR) in Emergency Departments (EDs), and the freely available smartphone application for CFS assessment was never tested for reliability. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) ratings between experienced and unexperienced staff (ED clinicians and a study team (ST) of medical students supported by a smartphone application to assess the CFS), and to determine the feasibility of CFS assignment in patients aged 65 or older at triage.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using consecutive sampling of ED patients aged 65 or older. We compared assessments by ED clinicians (Triage Clinicians (TC) and geriatric ED trained nurses (geriED-TN)) and a study team (ST) of medical students using a smartphone application for CFS scoring. The study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05400707).

RESULTS

We included 1349 patients aged 65 and older. Quadratic-weighted kappa values for ordinal CFS levels showed a good IRR between TC and ST (ϰ = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), similarly to that between TC and geriED-TN (ϰ = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) and between the ST and geriED-TN (ϰ = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.81). A CFS rating was assigned to 972 (70.2%) patients at triage.

CONCLUSION

We found good IRR in the assessment of frailty with the CFS in different ED providers and a team using a smartphone application to support rating. A CFS assessment occurred in more than two-thirds (70.2%) of patients at triage.

Frailty assessment in emergency medicine using the Clinical Frailty Scale: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a common condition present in older Emergency Department (ED) patients that is associated with poor health outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a tool that measures frailty on a scale from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill). The goal of this scoping review was to describe current use of the CFS in emergency medicine and to identify gaps in research.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature search to identify original research that used the CFS in emergency medicine. Several databases were searched from January 2005 to July 2021. Two independent reviewers completed screening, full text review and data abstraction, with a focus on study characteristics, CFS assessment (evaluators, timing and purpose), study outcomes and statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 4818 unique citations were identified; 34 studies were included in the final analysis. Among them, 76% were published after 2018, mainly in Europe or North America (79%). Only two assessed CFS in the pre-hospital setting. The nine-point scale was used in 74% of the studies, and patient consent was required in 69% of them. The main reason to use CFS was as a main exposure (44%), a potential predictor (15%) or an outcome (15%). The most frequently studied outcomes were mortality and hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

The use of CFS in emergency medicine research is drastically increasing. However, the reporting is not optimal and should be more standardized. Studies evaluating the impact of frailty assessment in the ED are needed.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W2F8N.

The Prognostic Accuracy of Clinical Judgment Versus a Validated Frailty Screening Instrument in Older Patients at the Emergency Department: Findings of the AmsterGEM Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the prognostic accuracy of clinical judgment for frailty in older patients at the emergency department with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study in patients 70 years of age and older in 2 Dutch EDs with a follow-up of 3 months. A dichotomous question was asked to the physician and patient: "Do you consider the patient / yourself to be frail?" The Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) was used as a validated screening instrument. The primary composite outcome consisted of either functional decline, institutionalization, or mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 736 patients were included. The physician identified 59% as frail, compared with 49% by ISAR-HP and 43% by patients themselves. The level of agreement was fair (Fleiss Kappa, 0.31). After 3 months, 31% of the patients experienced at least 1 adverse health outcome. The sensitivity was 79% for the physician, 72% for ISAR-HP, 61% for the patient, and 48% for all 3 combined. The specificity was 50% for the physician, 63% for ISAR-HP, 66% for the patient, and 85% for all 3 positive. The highest positive likelihood ratio was 3.03 (physician, ISAR-HP, patient combined), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio was 0.42 (physician). The areas under the receiver operating curves were all poor: 0.68 at best for ISAR-HP.

CONCLUSION

Clinical judgment for frailty showed fair agreement with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. All 3 instruments have poor prognostic accuracy, which does not improve when combined. These findings illustrate the limited prognostic value of clinical judgment as a frailty screener in older patients at the ED.

Prevalence and Economic Burden of Malnutrition Diagnosis Among Patients Presenting to United States Emergency Departments

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a potentially remediable condition that when untreated contributes to poor health and economic outcomes. While assessment of malnutrition risk is improving, its identification rate and economic burden in emergency departments (EDs) is largely unknown. We sought to determine prevalence and economic burden of diagnosed malnutrition among patients presenting to U.S. EDs.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample data. Malnutrition prevalence was confirmed via International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, diagnosis codes. The economic burden was assessed by comparing probability of hospitalization and the average total charges between propensity-score matched visits with and without a malnutrition diagnosis.

RESULTS

Data from 238 million ED visits between 2006 and 2014 were analyzed. Over this period, the prevalence of diagnosed malnutrition increased for all demographic categories assessed. For older adults (≥65 years), the prevalence increased from 2.5% (2006) to 3.6% (2014). Older age, high-income community residence, Western region, urban areas, and Medicare coverage were associated with higher diagnosis prevalence. Malnutrition diagnosis was associated with a 4.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.93 to 4.55) times higher odds of hospitalization and $21,892 higher mean total charges (95% CI = $19,593 to $24,192).

CONCLUSIONS

While malnutrition is currently diagnosed at a low rate in U.S. EDs, the economic burden of malnutrition is substantial in this care setting. Given the potential for systematic malnutrition screening and treatment protocols to alleviate this burden, future research is warranted.

The effect of comprehensive assessment and multi-disciplinary management for the geriatric and frail patient: A multi-center, randomized, parallel controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) of elderly patients is useful for detecting the patients vulnerabilities. Exercise and early rehabilitation, nutritional intervention, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), standardized medication guidance, and patient education can, separately, improve and even reverse the physical frailty status. However, the effect of combining a CGA and multi-disciplinary management on frailty in elderly patients remains unclear. The present study assessed the effects of a CGA and multi-disciplinary management on elderly patients with frailty in China.

METHODS

In this study, 320 in patients with frailty ≥70 years old will be randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group. The intervention group will be given routine management, a CGA and multi-disciplinary management involving rehabilitation exercise, diet adjustment, multi-drug evaluation, acupoint massage in TCM and patient education for 12 months, and the control group will be followed up with routine management for basic diseases. The primary outcomes are the Fried phenotype and short physical performance battery (SPPB). The secondary outcomes are the clinical frailty scale (CFS), non-elective hospital readmission, basic activities of daily living (BADL), 5-level European quality of life 5 dimensions index (EQ-5D), nutrition risk screening-2002 (NRS-2002), medical insurance expenses, fall events, and all-cause mortality. In addition, a cost-effectiveness study will be carried out.

DISCUSSION

This paper outlines the protocol for a randomized, single-blind, parallel multi-center clinical study. This protocol, if beneficial, will demonstrate the interaction of various intervention strategies, will help improve elderly frailty patients, and will be useful for clinicians, nurses, policymakers, public health authorities, and the general population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trials Register, ChiCTR1900022623. Registered on April 19, 2019, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=38141.

The Association of a Frailty Index and Incident Delirium in Older Hospitalized Patients: An Observational Cohort Study

Introduction/Background

Frailty identifies patients that have vulnerability to stress. Acute illness and hospitalization are stressors that may result in delirium and further accelerate the negative consequences of frailty.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine whether frailty, identified at hospital admission and as measured by a frailty index, is associated with incident delirium.

Methods

A retrospective, observational, cohort study was done at a Veterans hospital between January 2013 and March 2014. English-speaking patients over 55 years were eligible. Exclusion criteria included inability to complete baseline assessments due to pre-existing cognitive impairment, emergent surgery; and/or admission from a nursing home, pre-existing delirium, and those with psychiatric disease or substance use disorder.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Frailty index (FI) variables included cognitive screening, physical function and comorbidities. The FI was calculated as a proportion of possible deficits (range 0 to 1; higher scores indicate increased frailty). Incident delirium was measured daily by an expert clinician interview.

Results

A total of 247 patients were admitted and 218 met inclusion/exclusion criteria, with a mean age of 71.54 years (SD = 9.53 years) and were predominantly white (92.7%) and male (91.7%). Participants were grouped using FI ranges as non-frail (FI <0.25, n=56 (26%)), pre-frail (FI =0.25–0.35, n=86 (39%)), and frail (FI >0.35, n=76 (35%)). Pre-frailty and frailty were associated with incident delirium (non-frail: 3.6% vs pre-frail: 20.9% vs frail: 29.3%, p=0.001) and total delirium days (mean day =non-frail 0.04 vs pre-frail 0.35 vs frail 0.57, p=0.003). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, pre-frail (adjusted OR=5.64, 95% CI: 1.23, 25.99) and frail status (adjusted OR=6.80, 95% CI: 1.38, 33.45) were independently associated with delirium.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that a frailty index is independently associated with incident delirium and suggests that admission assessments for frailty may identify patients at high risk of developing delirium.

Validation of the Clinical Frailty Scale for Prediction of Thirty-Day Mortality in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We validate the Clinical Frailty Scale by examining its independent predictive validity for 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and hospitalization and by determining its reliability. We also determine frailty prevalence in our emergency department (ED) as measured with the Clinical Frailty Scale.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study including consecutive ED patients aged 65 years or older, from a single tertiary care center during a 9-week period. To examine predictive validity, association with mortality was investigated through a Cox proportional hazards regression; hospitalization and ICU transfer were investigated through multivariable logistic regression. We assessed reliability by calculating Cohen's weighted κ for agreement of experts who independently assigned Clinical Frailty Scale levels, compared with trained study assistants. Frailty was defined as a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 5 and higher.

RESULTS

A total of 2,393 patients were analyzed in this study, of whom 128 died. Higher frailty levels were associated with higher hazards for death independent of age, sex, and condition (medical versus surgical). The area under the curve for 30-day mortality prediction was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 0.85), for hospitalization 0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.74), and for ICU admission 0.69 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.73). Interrater reliability between the reference standard and the study team was good (weighted Cohen's κ was 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). Frailty prevalence was 36.8% (n=880).

CONCLUSION

The Clinical Frailty Scale appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to identify frailty in the ED. It might provide ED clinicians with useful information for decisionmaking in regard to triage, disposition, and treatment.