Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study

A Wrist-Worn Wearable Device Can Identify Frailty in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: The UK Biobank Study

OBJECTIVES

Digital gait biomarkers collected from body-worn devices can remotely and continuously collect movement types, quantity, and quality in real life. This study assessed whether digital gait biomarkers from a wrist-worn device could identify people with frailty in a large sample of middle-aged and older adults.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5822 middle-aged (43-64 years) and 4344 older adults (65-81 years) who participated in the UK Biobank study.

MEASURES

Frailty was assessed using a modified Fried's frailty assessment and was defined as having ≥3 of the 5 frailty criteria (weakness, low activity levels, slowness, exhaustion, and weight loss). Fourteen digital gait biomarkers were extracted from accelerometry data collected from wrist-worn sensors worn continuously by participants for up to 7 days.

RESULTS

A total of 238 (4.1%) of the middle-aged group and 196 (4.5%) of the older group were categorized as frail. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that less daily walking (as assessed by step counts), slower maximum walking speed, and increased step time variability best-identified people with frailty in the middle-aged group [area under the curve (95% CI): 0.70 (0.66-0.73)]. Less daily walking, slower maximum walking speed, increased step time variability, and a lower proportion of walks undertaken with a manual task best-identified people with frailty in the older group [0.73 (0.69-0.76)].

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our findings indicate that measures obtained from wrist-worn wearable devices worn in everyday life can identify individuals with frailty in both middle-aged and older people. These digital gait biomarkers may facilitate screening programs and the timely implementation of frailty-prevention interventions.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury in the Elderly: Consensus Statements and Recommendations from the IQ-DILI Initiative

The elderly demographic is the fastest-growing segment of the world's population and is projected to exceed 1.5 billion people by 2050. With multimorbidity, polypharmacy, susceptibility to drug-drug interactions, and frailty as distinct risk factors, elderly patients are especially vulnerable to developing potentially life-threatening safety events such as serious forms of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). It has been a longstanding shortcoming that elderly individuals are often a vulnerable population underrepresented in clinical trials. As such, an improved understanding of DILI in the elderly is a high-priority, unmet need. This challenge is underscored by recent documents put forward by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) that encourage data collection in the elderly and recommend improved practices that will facilitate a more inclusive approach. To establish what is already known about DILI in the elderly and pinpoint key gaps of knowledge in this arena, a working definition of "elderly" is required that accounts for both chronologic and biologic ages and varying states of frailty. In addition, it is critical to characterize the biological role of aging on liver function, as well as the different epidemiological factors such as polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing that are common practices. While data may not show that elderly people are more susceptible to DILI, DILI due to specific drugs might be more common in this population. Improved characterization of DILI in the elderly may enhance diagnostic and prognostic capabilities and improve the way in which liver safety is monitored during clinical trials. This summary of the published literature provides a framework to understand and evaluate the risk of DILI in the elderly. Consensus statements and recommendations can help to optimize medical care and catalyze collaborations between academic clinicians, drug manufacturers, and regulatory scientists to enable the generation of high-quality research data relevant to the elderly population.

Putting Guidelines Into Practice: Is Frailty Measurement at the Time of Kidney Transplant Eligibility Assessment Valid, Feasible, and Acceptable to Patients?

Background

Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment.

Methods

A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors.

Conclusions

The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.

Instruments Measuring Self-Care and Self-Management of Chronic Conditions by Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Scoping Review

Given the high prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity in older adults, there is a need to better conceptualize and measure self-care and self-management to promote a person-centered approach. This scoping review aimed to identify and map instruments measuring self-care and self-management of chronic conditions by older adults. We searched six electronic databases, charted data from the studies and tools and reported the results in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A total of 107 articles (103 studies) containing 40 tools were included in the review. There was substantial variation in the tools in terms of their aims and scope, structure, theoretical foundations, how they were developed, and the settings in which they have been used. The quantity of tools demonstrates the importance of assessing self-care and self-management. Consideration of the purpose, scope, and theoretical foundation should guide decisions about tools suitable for use in research and clinical practice.

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.

Comparison of the association between six different frailty scales and clinical events in patients on hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). However, no study has used various frailty assessments in patients on HD to examine their association with clinical events. In this study, we investigated the association between clinical events and six frailty scales.

METHODS

Outpatients who underwent HD between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. Frailty was defined using the Fried Frailty Phenotype, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) Index, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Frail Screening Index, FRAIL scale and Clinical Frailty Scale. Outcomes were clinical events, including a composite of multiple (i.e. recurrent) all-cause hospitalizations, fractures and/or all-cause mortality. The association of clinical events and the frailty scales were investigated using negative binomial regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fried Frailty Phenotype [incident rate ratio (IRR), 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.49-1.76], SOF Index (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), SPPB (IRR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.11-2.88) and Clinical Frailty Scale (IRR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.04-2.61) were significantly associated with clinical events. However, Frail Screening Index (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.60-3.18) and FRAIL scale (IRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.88-1.92) showed no significant association with clinical events.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective frailty assessments (SPPB) and medical staff impression-based frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale) may be useful prognostic predictors for patients on HD. Questionnaire-based frailty assessment should be carefully considered when used as a measurement of frailty.

Practical management of frailty in older patients with heart failure: Statement from a panel of multidisciplinary experts on behalf the Heart Failure Working Group of the French Society of Cardiology and on behalf French Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology

AIMS

The heart failure (HF) prognosis in older patients remains poor with a high 5-years mortality rate more frequently attributed to noncardiovascular causes. The complex interplay between frailty and heart failure contribute to poor health outcomes of older adults with HF independently of ejection fraction. The aim of this position paper is to propose a practical management of frailty in older patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A panel of multidisciplinary experts on behalf the Heart Failure Working Group of the French Society of Cardiology and on behalf French Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology conducted a systematic literature search on the interlink between frailty and HF, met to propose an early frailty screening by non-geriatricians and to propose ways to implement management plan of frailty. Statements were agreed by expert consensus.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant aspects of interlink between frailty and HF have been reported to identify the population eligible for screening and the most suitable screening test(s). The frailty screening program proposed focuses on frailty model defined by an accumulation of deficits including geriatric syndromes, comorbidities, for older patients with HF in different settings of care. The management plan of frailty includes optimization of HF pharmacological treatments and non-surgical device treatment as well as optimization of a global patient-centred biopsychosocial blended collaborative care pathway.

CONCLUSION

The current manuscript provides practical recommendations on how to screen and optimize frailty management in older patients with heart failure.

Practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of common frailty screening instruments within general practice settings: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a highly prevalent clinical syndrome increasing older people's vulnerability to risk of adverse outcomes. Better frailty identification through expanded screening implementation has been advocated within general practice settings, both internationally and within Australia. However, little is known about practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of specific instruments, and the underlying motivations behind those perceptions. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of a convenience and volunteer sample of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) towards common frailty screening instruments.

METHODS

The feasibility of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7 [P7], Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) to 43 Australian GPs and PNs was assessed. The study adopted a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design incorporating quantitative (ranking exercise) and qualitative (content analysis) data collection integrated during the analysis phase.

RESULTS

Practitioners assessed multi-dimensional instruments (EFS, GFI, KC) as having relatively higher clinical utility, better integration into existing assessment processes and stronger links to intervention over uni-dimensional (GST, TUG) and simple (FQ, P7) instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

While existing frailty screening instruments show promise as an initial step in supporting better care for older people, all the included instruments were associated with perceived advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, clinicians will need to weigh several factors in their selection of the optimal screening instrument. Further translational research, with a focus on contextual fit, is needed to support clinical decision-making on the selection of instruments for frailty screening.

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.

An exploration of medical student attitudes towards older persons and frailty during undergraduate training

INTRODUCTION

Older persons and patients with frailty constitute an ever increasing proportion of hospital patients. Improving student attitudes towards both groups is important in preparing future doctors for this demographic shift. We aimed to investigate medical student attitudes towards older persons and frailty over an entire medical school cohort.

METHODS

All current Brighton and Sussex Medical School students were invited to complete an online questionnaire consisting: (i) the Australian Ageing Semantic Differential (AASD), (ii) the Medical Condition Regard Scale (MCRS) with regards to frailty, (iii) a qualitative question asking participants to record three words regarding both a person over 70 years and frailty.

RESULTS

187 students participated (66% female, 25.2% response rate). Participants reported positive attitudes with mean scores of 73.45/114 on the AASD and 52.4/66 on the MCRS. The most positive attitudes towards both older persons and frailty were held by year 1 students, and most negative by year 3 and year 4 students for older persons and frailty, respectively. Examining AASD subgroups, students held negative attitudes towards the instrumentality (function) of older persons (mean score: 17.6/36) with significant variation across year groups (p < 0.05), with the most negative attitudes expressed in year 3. Word clouds of qualitative responses showed that medical students consider the two concepts differently with frailty attracting more negative associations.

CONCLUSION

Generally medical student attitudes were positive towards older persons and frailty. However, these declined when focusing on the functionality, with word cloud analysis of attitudes revealing a dichotomy between the quantitative and qualitative data surrounding frailty.