The Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP) to Identify Non-Frail Patients

The Association between Functional Health Patterns and Frailty in Hospitalized Geriatric Patients

This study investigates the association between the Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool (FHPAST) and frailty in hospitalized geriatric patients. One hundred and forty patients (mean age 78.2 years, age range 65-90) were screened for frailty using the Frail Scale during hospitalization in the geriatric unit. Among them, 57 patients were identified as prefrail (40.7%), and 83 were identified as frail (59.3%). A comparative analysis between groups in terms of the FHPAST components covering health risk, general well-being, and health promotion was performed. Correlations between FHAPST components, socio-demographic data, frailty criteria, as well as logistic regression to identify variables that better predict frailty were also sought. Frailty was mainly associated with difficulty urinating, limitations in performing activities of daily living and walking, physical discomfort, less positive feelings in controlling one's own life, lower compliance with recommendations from the healthcare provider, and engagement in seeking healthcare services. Patients with difficulty urinating and walking had a probability of 4.38 times (OR = 4.38, CI 95% [1.20-15.94]), p = 0.025) and 65.7 times (OR = 65.7, CI 95% [19.37-223.17], p < 0.001) higher of being frail rather than prefrail. The relationship between frailty and prefrailty in hospitalized geriatric patients and components of nursing Functional Health Patterns (FHP) has yet to be explored. This study provides evidence of the most prevalent needs of frail geriatric patients in hospital settings.

Multi-Domain Screening: Identification of Patient's Risk Profile Prior to Head-and-Neck Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Head-and-neck cancer (HNC) can give rise to oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD), malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty. Early identification of these phenomena in newly diagnosed HNC patients is important to reduce the risk of complications and to improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was (1) to determine the prevalence of the risk of OD, malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty; and (2) to investigate the relation between these phenomena and patients' age, performance status, and cancer group staging.

METHODS

Patients (N = 128) underwent multi-domain screening consisting of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 for OD, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire and BMI for malnutrition, Short Physical Performance Battery and Hand Grip Strength for sarcopenia, and Distress Thermometer and Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for frailty.

RESULTS

26.2%, 31.0%, 73.0%, and 46.4% of the patients were at risk for OD, malnutrition, sarcopenia, or frailty, respectively. Patients with an advanced cancer stage had a significantly higher risk of OD and high levels of distress prior to cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the risk profile of newly diagnosed HNC patients using a standardized 'quick and easy' multi-domain screening prior to cancer treatment.

Prevalence and outcomes of frailty in unplanned hospital admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hospital-wide and general (internal) medicine cohorts

Background

Guidelines recommend routine frailty screening for all hospitalised older adults to inform care decisions, based mainly on studies in elective or speciality-specific settings. However, most hospital bed days are accounted for by acute non-elective admissions, in which the prevalence and prognostic value of frailty might differ, and uptake of screening is limited. We therefore did a systematic review and meta-analysis of frailty prevalence and outcomes in unplanned hospital admissions.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to 31/01/2023 and included observational studies using validated frailty measures in adult hospital-wide or general medicine admissions. Summary data on the prevalence of frailty and associated outcomes, measurement tools, study setting (hospital-wide vs general medicine), and design (prospective vs retrospective) were extracted and risk of bias assessed (modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklists). Unadjusted relative risks (RR; moderate/severe frailty vs no/mild) for mortality (within one year), length of stay (LOS), discharge destination and readmission were calculated and pooled, where appropriate, using random-effects models. PROSPERO CRD42021235663.

Findings

Among 45 cohorts (median/SD age = 80/5 years; n = 39,041,266 admissions, n = 22 measurement tools) moderate/severe frailty ranged from 14.3% to 79.6% overall (and in the 26 cohorts with low-moderate risk of bias) with considerable heterogeneity between studies (phet < 0.001) preventing pooling of results but with rates <25% in only 3 cohorts. Moderate/severe vs no/mild frailty was associated with increased mortality (n = 19 cohorts; RR range = 1.08-3.70), more consistently among cohorts using clinically administered tools (n = 11; RR range = 1.63-3.70; phet = 0.08; pooled RR = 2.53, 95% CI = 2.15-2.97) vs cohorts using (retrospective) administrative coding data (n = 8; RR range = 1.08-3.02; phet < 0.001). Clinically administered tools also predicted increasing mortality across the full range of frailty severity in each of the six cohorts that allowed ordinal analysis (all p < 0.05). Moderate/severe vs no/mild frailty was also associated with a LOS >8 days (RR range = 2.14-3.04; n = 6) and discharge to a location other than home (RR range = 1.97-2.82; n = 4) but was inconsistently related to 30-day readmission (RR range = 0.83-1.94; n = 12). Associations remained clinically significant after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidity where reported.

Interpretation

Frailty is common in older patients with acute, non-elective hospital admission and remains predictive of mortality, LOS and discharge home with more severe frailty associated with greater risk, justifying more widespread implementation of screening using clinically administered tools.

Funding

None.

The Future of Assessing Frailty in the Patient With Advanced Heart Failure: A Review of Current Literature

Frailty is becoming an important component of health care outcomes in patients with a diagnosis of heart failure. A literature search was completed to determine whether a best practice guideline existed to assess frailty in patients who were considering ventricular assist device placement. The literature search revealed that best practice guidelines did not exist. A second comprehensive literature search was completed specifically for frailty including the definition, criteria, assessment, and outcomes. The studies revealed that there were challenges with defining frailty, the age of frailty, assessments tools, and study designs. Cardiologists are primarily interested in screening for frailty, but other physician specialty practices are interested in a frailty screening tool as well. This article discusses the inconsistent research studies and the need for a valid and reliable tool to assess for frailty. It is important that nurse leaders and those working with heart failure patients determine the best practice guidelines for assessing frailty.

The ability of eight frailty instruments to identify adverse outcomes across different settings: the FRAILTOOLS project

BACKGROUND

To compare the performance of eight frailty instruments to identify relevant adverse outcomes for older people across different settings over a 12 month follow-up.

METHODS

Observational longitudinal prospective study of people aged 75 + years enrolled in different settings (acute geriatric wards, geriatric clinic, primary care clinics, and nursing homes) across five European cities. Frailty was assessed using the following: Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), 3-item FTS (FTS-3), FRAIL scale, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool, and Clinical Frailty Scale. Adverse outcomes ascertained at follow-up were as follows: falls, hospitalization, increase in limitation in basic (BADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, and capacity to predict adverse outcomes in logistic regressions by each instrument above age, gender, and multimorbidity were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 996 individuals were followed (mean age 82.2 SD 5.5 years, 61.3% female). In geriatric wards, the FI-35 (69.1%) and the FTS-5 (67.9%) showed good sensitivity to predict death and good specificity to predict BADL worsening (70.3% and 69.8%, respectively). The FI-35 also showed good sensitivity to predict BADL worsening (74.6%). In nursing homes, the FI-35 and the FTSs predicted mortality and BADL worsening with a sensitivity > 73.9%. In geriatric clinic, the FI-35, the FTS-5, and the FRAIL scale obtained specificities > 85% to predict BADL worsening. No instrument achieved high enough sensitivity nor specificity in primary care. All the instruments predict the risk for all the outcomes in the whole sample after adjusting for age, gender, and multimorbidity. The associations of these instruments that remained significant by setting were for BADL worsening in geriatric wards [FI-35 OR = 5.94 (2.69-13.14), FTS-3 = 3.87 (1.76-8.48)], nursing homes [FI-35 = 4.88 (1.54-15.44), FTS-5 = 3.20 (1.61-6.38), FTS-3 = 2.31 (1.27-4.21), FRAIL scale = 1.91 (1.05-3.48)], and geriatric clinic [FRAIL scale = 4.48 (1.73-11.58), FI-35 = 3.30 (1.55-7.00)]; for IADL worsening in primary care [FTS-5 = 3.99 (1.14-13.89)] and geriatric clinic [FI-35 = 3.42 (1.56-7.49), FRAIL scale = 3.27 (1.21-8.86)]; for hospitalizations in primary care [FI-35 = 3.04 (1.25-7.39)]; and for falls in geriatric clinic [FI-35 = 2.21 (1.01-4.84)].

CONCLUSIONS

No single assessment instrument performs the best for all settings and outcomes. While in inpatients several commonly used frailty instruments showed good sensitivities (mainly for mortality and BADL worsening) but usually poor specificities, the contrary happened in geriatric clinic. None of the instruments showed a good performance in primary care. The FI-35 and the FTS-5 showed the best profile among the instruments assessed.

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.

The prediction of readmission and mortality by the domains and components of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): A prospective cohort study among acutely admitted older patients

PURPOSE

To assess the predictive value of three different frailty domains (physical, psychological, social) for both readmission and mortality in a population of acutely admitted older patients, and to determine which components of the individual three frailty domains had an effect on readmission and mortality.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted in a sample of 1,328 Danish acutely admitted patients aged 65 years or older. The follow-up period on readmission and death was six months. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), a validated questionnaire, was used to assess the three frailty domains and their 15 components.

RESULTS

After using sequential logistic regression analyses, including controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and comorbidity, physical and social frailty predicted readmission and death, while psychological frailty predicted only readmission. The analyses also demonstrated that the component weight loss had predictive value for both outcomes, and feeling down and missing people around you were only associated with readmission, after controlling for all the predictors.

CONCLUSION

Our study emphasizes the importance of a multidimensional measurement of frailty, including a physical, psychological and social domain. Health care professionals aiming to prevent readmission and death among acutely admitted patients should at least conduct interventions focused on unintentional weight loss, feeling down, and missing people around you, because their effect on the outcomes was the largest.

Frailty screening in hospitalised older adults: How does the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program perform compared to a more extensive approach?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the predictive properties of the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program for the screening of frail hospitalised older patients (VMS) and to compare these with the more extensive Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP).

BACKGROUND

Screening of older patients during admission may help to detect frailty and underlying geriatric conditions. The VMS screening assesses patients on four domains (i.e. functional decline, delirium risk, fall risk and nutrition). The 15-item MFST-HP assesses patients on three domains of frailty (physical, social and psychological).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Data of 2,573 hospitalised patients (70+) admitted in 2013 were included, and relative risks, sensitivity and specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of the two tools were calculated for discharge destination, readmissions and mortality. The data were derived from the patients nursing files. A STARD checklist was completed.

RESULTS

Different proportions of frail patients were identified by means of both tools: 1,369 (53.2%) based on the VMS and 414 (16.1%) based on the MFST-HP. The specificity was low for the VMS, and the sensitivity was low for the MFST-HP. The overall AUC for the VMS varied from 0.50 to 0.76 and from 0.49 to 0.69 for the MFST-HP.

CONCLUSION

The predictive properties of the VMS and the more extended MFST-HP on the screening of frailty among older hospitalised patients are poor to moderate and not very promising.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The VMS labels a high proportion of older patients as potentially frail, while the MFST-HP labels over 80% as nonfrail. An extended tool did not increase the predictive ability of the VMS. However, information derived from the individual items of the screening tools may help nurses in daily practice to intervene on potential geriatric risks such as delirium risk or fall risk.

The ability of four frailty screening instruments to predict mortality, hospitalization and dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living

The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specificity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specificity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specificity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.

Associations and predictions of readmission or death in acutely admitted older medical patients using self-reported frailty and functional measures. A Danish cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether frailty in acutely admitted older medical patients, assessed by a self-report questionnaire and evaluation of functional level at discharge, was associated with readmission or death within 6 months after discharge. A second objective was to assess the predictive performance of models including frailty, functional level, and known risk factors.

METHODS

A cohort study including acutely admitted older patients 65+ from seven medical and two acute medical units. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), and grip strength (GS) exposure variables were measured. Associations were assessed using Cox regression with first unplanned readmission or death (all-causes) as the outcome. Prediction models including the three exposure variables and known risk factors were modelled using logistic regression and C-statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1328 included patients, 50% were readmitted or died within 6 months. When adjusted for gender and age, there was an 88% higher risk of readmission or death if the TFI scores were 8-13 points compared to 0-1 points (HR 1.88, CI 1.38;2.58). Likewise, higher TUG and lower GS scores were associated with higher risk of readmission or death. The area under the curve for the prediction models ranged from 0.64 (0.60;0.68) to 0.72 (0.68;0.76).

CONCLUSION

In acutely admitted older medical patients, higher frailty assessed by TFI, TUG, and GS was associated with a higher risk of readmission or death within 6 months after discharge. The performance of the prediction models was mediocre, and the models cannot stand alone as risk stratification tools in clinical practice.