Feasibility and accuracy of ED frailty identification in older trauma patients: a prospective multi-centre study

Comparison of adult versus elderly patients with abdominal trauma: A retrospective database analysis

BACKGROUND

The growing geriatric population has specific medical characteristics that should be taken into account especially in trauma setting. There is little evidence on management of abdominal trauma in the elderly and this article compares the management and outcomes of younger and older patients in order to highlight fields of improvement.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective database analysis from two European university hospitals selecting patients admitted for abdominal injury and extracted the following data: epidemiological data, mechanisms of the trauma, vital signs, blood tests, injuries, applied treatments, trauma scores and outcomes. We compared to different age group (16-64 and 65+ years old) using uni- and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

1181 patients were included for statistical analysis. The main mechanisms of injury in both group were traffic accidents and in the elderly group, falls were more frequent. Both had similar Abbreviated Injury Score except for the thoracic injuries, which was higher in the elderly group. We reported a death rate of 13% in the elderly group and 7% in the younger group. However, multivariable analysis did not report age as an independent predictor of mortality. The management including surgery, blood transfusion and need for intensive care were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although elderly patients suffering abdominal trauma have an almost two fold higher mortality, their management is quite similar leading to an important point of improvement in regards to triage and lower threshold for more aggressive management and surveillance. Age itself does not seem to be a reliable predictor of mortality. Introducing a frailty score when taking care of elderly trauma patients could improve the outcomes.

30-Day Mortality among Very Old Patients Admitted to European Intensive Care Units for Major Trauma

INTRODUCTION

Cases of major trauma in the very old (over 80 years) are increasingly common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Predicting outcome is challenging in this group of patients as chronological age is a poor marker of health and poor predictor of outcome. Increasingly, decisions are guided by the use of organ dysfunction scores of both acute conditions (e.g., sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA] score) and chronic health issues (e.g., clinical frailty scale [CFS]). Recent work suggests that increased CFS is associated with a worse outcome in elderly major trauma patients. We aimed to test whether this association held true in the very old (over 80) or whether SOFA had a stronger association with 30-day outcome.

METHODS

Data from the very elderly intensive care patient (VIP)-1 and VIP-2 studies for patients over 80 years old with major trauma admissions were merged. These participants were recruited from 20 countries across Europe. Baseline characteristics, level of care provided, and outcome (ICU and 30-day mortality) were summarised. Uni- and multivariable regression analyses were undertaken to determine associations between CFS and SOFA score in the first 24 h, type of major trauma, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 8,062 acute patients recruited to the two VIP studies, 498 patients were admitted to intensive care because of major trauma. Median age was 84 years, median SOFA score was 6 (IQR 3, 9), and median CFS was 3 (IQR 2, 5). Survival for 30 days was 54%. Median and interquartile range of CFS were the same for survivors and non-survivors. In the logistic regression analysis, CFS was not associated with increased mortality. SOFA score (p < 0.001) and trauma with head injury (p < 0.01) were associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Major trauma admissions in the very old are not uncommon, and 30-day mortality is high. We found that CFS was not a helpful predictor of mortality. SOFA and trauma with head injury were associated with worse outcomes in this patient group.

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.

Investigating the effects of frailty on six-month outcomes in older trauma patients admitted to UK major trauma centres: a multi-centre follow up study

BACKGROUND

Pre-injury frailty is associated with adverse in-hospital outcomes in older trauma patients, but the association with longer term survival and recovery is unclear. We aimed to investigate post discharge survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in older frail patients at six months after Major Trauma Centre (MTC) admission.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre study of patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted to five MTCs. Data were collected via questionnaire at hospital discharge and six months later. The primary outcome was patient-reported HRQoL at follow up using Euroqol EQ5D-5 L visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included health status according to EQ5D dimensions and care requirements at follow up. Multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between predictor variables and EQ-5D-5 L VAS at follow up.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients died in the follow up period, of which two-third (64%) had been categorised as frail pre-injury, compared to 21 (16%) of the 133 survivors. There was no difference in self-reported HRQoL between frail and not-frail patients at discharge (Mean EQ-VAS: Frail 55.8 vs. Not-frail 64.1, p = 0.137) however at follow-up HRQoL had improved for the not-frail group but deteriorated for frail patients (Mean EQ-VAS: Frail: 50.0 vs. Not-frail: 65.8, p = 0.009). There was a two-fold increase in poor quality of life at six months (VAS ≤ 50) for frail patients (Frail: 65% vs. Not-frail: 30% p < 0.009). Frailty (β-13.741 [95% CI -25.377, 2.105], p = 0.02), increased age (β -1.064 [95% CI [-1.705, -0.423] p = 0.00) and non-home discharge (β -12.017 [95% CI [118.403, 207.203], p = 0.04) were associated with worse HRQoL at follow up. Requirements for professional carers increased five-fold in frail patients at follow-up (Frail: 25% vs. Not-frail: 4%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is associated with increased mortality post trauma discharge and frail older trauma survivors had worse HRQoL and increased care needs at six months post-discharge. Pre-injury frailty is a predictor of poor longer-term HRQoL after trauma and recognition should enable early specialist pathways and discharge planning.

Is the clinical frailty scale feasible to use in an emergency department setting? A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool used to identify frailty in older patients visiting the emergency department (ED). However, the current understanding of how it is used and accepted in ED clinical practice is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of CFS in an ED setting.

METHODS

This was a prospective, mixed methods study conducted in three Swedish EDs where CFS had recently been introduced. We examined the completion rate of CFS assessments in relation to patient- and organisational factors. A survey on staff experience of using CFS was also conducted. All quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while free text comments underwent a qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4235 visits were analysed, and CFS assessments were performed in 47%. The completion rate exceeded 50% for patients over the age of 80. Patients with low triage priority were assessed to a low degree (24%). There was a diurnal variation with the highest completion rates seen for arrivals between 6 and 12 a.m. (58%). The survey response rate was 48%. The respondents rated the perceived relevance and the ease of use of the CFS with a median of 5 (IQR 2) on a scale with 7 being the highest. High workload, forgetfulness and critical illness were ranked as the top three barriers to assessment. The qualitative analysis showed that CFS assessments benefit from a clear routine and a sense of apparent relevance to emergency care.

CONCLUSION

Most emergency staff perceived CFS as relevant and easy to use, yet far from all older ED patients were assessed. The most common barrier to assessment was high workload. Measures to facilitate use may include clarifying the purpose of the assessment with explicit follow-up actions, as well as formulating a clear routine for the assessment.

REGISTRATION

The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 2021-06-18 (identifier: NCT04931472).

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the trauma-specific frailty index (TSFI) for geriatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Pre-traumatic frailty in geriatric trauma patients has caught attention from emergency medical workers and the assessment of it thus become one of the important aspects of risk management. Several tools are available to identify frailty, but limited tools have been validated for geriatric trauma patients in China to assess pre-traumatic frailty.The aim of this study is to translate the Trauma-Specific Frailty Index(TSFI) into Chinese, and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the translated version in geriatric trauma patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. The TSFI was translated with using the Brislin model, that included forward and backward translation. A total of 184 geriatric trauma patients were recruited by a convenience sampling between October and December 2020 in Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Sichuan. Using reliability or internal consistency tests assessed with Cronbach's alpha coefficient, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability. Content validity and construct validity analysis were both performed. Sensitivity, specificity and maximum Youden index(YI) were used to determine the optimal cut-off value. The screening performance was examined by Kappa value.

RESULTS

The total study population included 184 subjects, of which 8 participants were excluded, resulting in a study sample size of 176 elderly trauma patients (the completion rate was 95.7%). The Chinese version of Trauma-Specific Frailty Index(C-TSFI) have 15 items with 5 dimensions. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the C-TSFI was 0.861, Cronbach's alpha coefficient of dimensions ranged from 0.837 to 0.875, the split-half reliability of the C-TSFI were 0.894 and 0.880 respectively, test-retest reliability ranged from 0.692 to 0.862. The correlation coefficient between items and the C-TSFI ranged from 0.439 to 0.761. The content validity index for items (I-CVI) of the C-TSFI scale was 0.86~1.00, and the scale of content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.93. The area under curve (AUC) of the C-TSFI was 0.932 (95%CI 0.904-0.96, P < 0.05), the maximum YI was 0.725, the sensitivity was 80.2%, the specificity was 92.3%, and the critical value was 0.31. Kappa value was 0.682 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Chinese version of TSFI could be used as a general assessment tool in geriatric trauma patients, and both its reliability and validity have been demonstrated.

A systematic review of predictive accuracy via c-statistic of preoperative frailty tests for extended length of stay, post-operative complications, and mortality

Frailty, as an age-related syndrome of reduced physiological reserve, contributes significantly to post-operative outcomes. With the aging population, frailty poses a significant threat to patients and health systems. Since 2012, preoperative frailty assessment has been recommended, yet its implementation has been inhibited by the vast number of frailty tests and lack of consensus. Since the anesthesiologist is the best placed for perioperative care, an anesthesia-tailored preoperative frailty test must be simple, quick, universally applicable to all surgeries, accurate, and ideally available in an app or online form. This systematic review attempted to rank frailty tests by predictive accuracy using the c-statistic in the outcomes of extended length of stay, 3-month post-operative complications, and 3-month mortality, as well as feasibility outcomes including time to completion, equipment and training requirements, cost, and database compatibility. Presenting findings of all frailty tests as a future reference for anesthesiologists, Clinical Frailty Scale was found to have the best combination of accuracy and feasibility for mortality with speed of completion and phone app availability; Edmonton Frailty Scale had the best accuracy for post-operative complications with opportunity for self-reporting. Finally, extended length of stay had too little data for recommendation of a frailty test. This review also demonstrated the need for changing research emphasis from odds ratios to metrics that measure the accuracy of a test itself, such as the c-statistic.

[Relationship Between Frailty and Poor Prognosis in Older Trauma Patients in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Cohort Study]

Objective

To explore the relationship between frailty and adverse outcomes in older trauma patients in the emergency department.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted. Older trauma patients admitted to the emergency department of three tertiary-care hospitals in Chengdu between January 2021 and August 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into a frailty group and a non-frailty group according to their assessment results for Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI). The end points, including falls, readmission, and deaths, were documented during the 6-month follow-up. Cox risk regression model was used to analyze the relationship between frailty and adverse outcomes in older trauma patients in the emergency department.

Results

A total of 375 older trauma patients in the emergency department were enrolled, including 131 in the frailty group and 244 in the non-frailty group. After 6 months of follow-up, the incidences of falls, readmission and deaths in older trauma patients in the emergency department were 18.93%, 14.40%, and 7.73%, respectively. The incidences of falls (28.24% vs. 13.93%, P=0.001), readmission (25.95% vs. 8.20%, P=0.000), and deaths (12.98% vs. 4.92%, P=0.005) in older trauma patients in the emergency department in the frailty group were higher than those in the non-frailty group. After adjusting for multiple confounding factors using the Cox regression model, the risks of falls (hazard ratio [ HR]=1.859, 95% confidence interval [ CI]: 1.070-3.230, P=0.028] and readmission ( HR=2.920, 95% CI: 1.537-5.547, P=0.001) were higher in the frailty group than those in the non-frailty group, but there was no significant difference in the risk of deaths between the frailty group and the non-frailty group.

Conclusion

Frailty is a risk factor for falls and readmissions in older trauma patients in the emergency department and the association between frailty and the risk of deaths in older trauma patients in the emergency department needs to be validated by further studies.

Frailty Identification in Prehospital Care: A Scoping Review of the Literature

The proportion of older adults is increasing worldwide. Frailty assessment in prehospital care was suggested to improve triage decisions and paramedics' judgment. This study aimed to assess the scope and nature of available evidence around frailty identification in prehospital care. A systematic search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINHAL, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles published from January 2022 downwards. A list of indexed terms and their associated alternatives were pre-determined. Of the 71 identified and reviewed articles after removing duplicates, six articles were included in the review. Due to the heterogeneity of the included articles, the findings were described narratively. The findings of this review showed that the available evidence is limited and heterogenic. Two themes emerged from the findings of the included articles: 1) Paramedics' Perceptions about Frailty Assessment in Prehospital Care and 2) Frailty Scores for Application in Prehospital Care. Paramedics recognised frailty assessment in pre-hospital care to be feasible and important. They highlighted the need for a simple and clear frailty score that could be used and mentioned to other healthcare professionals when handing over patients. Six frailty scores were reported to be used in prehospital care. The evidence around each frailty score is very limited. Overall, frailty assessment in prehospital care was shown to be important and feasible. Different frailty scores have been assessed for use in prehospital care. Further research investigating frailty identification in prehospital care is needed.

Does frailty status predict outcome in major trauma in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of major trauma in older people is increasing. Frailty is likely to be a factor that influences the outcomes of trauma. We conducted a systematic review aiming to investigate whether frailty affects major trauma outcomes in older people and whether it is more predictive than age.

METHODS

Observational studies investigating frailty, major trauma severity and outcomes were eligible. We searched electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and CINAHL) from 2010 to 01 January 2023. We used Joanna Briggs Institute software to assess the risk of bias and conduct meta-analyses of the relationships between frailty status and outcomes. We used a narrative synthesis to compare the predictive value of frailty and age.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were eligible for meta-analyses. In-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05, 1.19), length of stay (OR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.51, 2.56), discharge to home (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.53, 0.63) and in-hospital complications (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.10, 1.24) were all associated with frailty. Frailty was found to be a more consistent predictor of adverse outcomes and mortality in older trauma patients than injury severity and age in six studies that reported multivariate regression analysis.

DISCUSSION

Older trauma patients with frailty have higher in-hospital mortality rates, prolonged hospital stays, in-hospital complications and adverse discharge disposition. Frailty is a better predictor of adverse outcomes than age in these patients. Frailty status is likely to be a useful prognostic variable in guiding patient management and stratifying clinical benchmarks and research trials.

Geriatric Trauma and Frailty

Geriatric trauma is increasing in the United States. The care of patients with geriatric trauma is complex due to age-related changes and comorbidities. Patients with geriatric trauma have increased risk of poor outcomes compared with younger patients with trauma, and the highest risk groups are those who have frailty. These patients require special care considerations. Multidisciplinary care can improve outcomes in frail patients with geriatric trauma.

Configurations and outcomes of acute hospital care for frail and older patients with moderate to major trauma: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review research on acute hospital care for frail or older adults experiencing moderate to major trauma.

SETTING

Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, EconLit, The Cochrane Library) were searched using index and key words, and reference lists and related articles hand-searched.

INCLUDED ARTICLES

Peer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1999-2020 inclusive, referring to models of care for frail and/or older people in the acute hospital phase of care following traumatic injury defined as either moderate or major (mean or median Injury Severity Score ≥9). Excluded articles reported no empirical findings, were abstracts or literature reviews, or referred to frailty screening alone.

METHODS

Screening abstracts and full text, and completing data extractions and quality assessments using QualSyst was a blinded parallel process. A narrative synthesis, grouped by intervention type, was undertaken.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Any outcomes reported for patients, staff or care system.

RESULTS

17 603 references were identified and 518 read in full; 22 were included-frailty and major trauma (n=0), frailty and moderate trauma (n=1), older people and major trauma (n=8), moderate or major trauma (n=7) 0r moderate trauma (n=6) . Studies were observational, heterogeneous in intervention and with variable methodological quality.Specific attention given to the care of older and/or frail people with moderate to major trauma in the North American context resulted in improvements to in-hospital processes and clinical outcomes, but highlights a relative paucity of evidence, particularly in relation to the first 48 hours post-injury.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review supports the need for, and further research into an intervention to address the care of frail and/or older patients with major trauma, and for the careful definition of age and frailty in relation to moderate or major trauma. INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE REGISTER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS PROSPERO: CRD42016032895.

Frailty Is a Risk Factor for Falls in the Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is little evidence in the literature about the relationship between frailty and falls in older adults. Our objective was to explore the relationship between frailty and falls, and to analyze the effect factors (e.g., gender, different frailty assessment tools, areas, level of national economic development, and year of publication) of the association between frailty and falls among older adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort studies that evaluated the association between frailty and falls in the older adults were included. We excluded any literature outside of cohort studies.

METHODS

We did a systematic literature search of English databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and SciElO, as well as the Chinese databases CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP from 2001 until October 2022. The eligible studies were evaluated for potential bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of study quality were each conducted by two investigators. In Stata/MP 17.0 software, we calculated pooled estimates of the prevalence of falls by using a random-effects model, Subgroup analysis was conducted based on gender, different frailty assessment tools, areas, level of economic development, and year of publication. The results are presented using a forest plot.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in this meta-analysis and a total of 1,093,270 participants aged 65 years and above were enrolled. Among the older adults, frailty was significantly associated with a higher risk for falls, compared with those without frailty (combined RR-relative risk = 1.48, 95% CI-confidence interval: 1.27-1.73, I2=98.9%). In addition, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that men had a higher risk for falls than women among the older adults with frailty (RR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.18-3.2 versus RR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.24-1.67). Subgroup analysis by different frailty assessment tools revealed an increased risk of falls in older adults with frailty when assessed using the Frailty Phenotype (combined RR 1.32, 95%CI: 1.17-1.48), FRAIL score (combined RR 1.82, 95%CI: 1.36-2.43), and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures index (combined RR 1.54, 95%CI: 1.10-2.16). Furthermore, subgroup analysis by areas and level of national economic development found the highest fall risk in Oceania (combined RR 2.35, 95%CI: 2.28-2.43) and the lowest in Europe (combined RR 1.20, 95%CI: 1.05-1.38). Developed countries exhibited a lower fall risk compared to developing countries (combined RR 1.44, 95%CI: 1.21-1.71). Analysis by year of publication showed the highest fall risk between 2013-2019 (combined RR 1.79, 95%CI: 1.45-2.20) and the lowest between 2001-2013 (combined RR 1.21, 95%CI: 1.13-1.29).

CONCLUSION

Frailty represents a significant risk factor for falls in older adults, with the degree of risk varying according to the different frailty assessment tools employed, and notably highest when using the FRAIL scale. Additionally, factors such as gender, areas, level of national economic development, and healthcare managers' understanding of frailty may all impact the correlation between frailty and falls. Thus, it's imperative to select suitable frailty diagnostic tools tailored to the specific characteristics of the population in question. This, in turn, facilitates the accurate identification of frailty in older adults and informs the development of appropriate preventive and therapeutic strategies to mitigate fall risk.

Provision of acute care pathways for older major trauma patients in the UK

BACKGROUND

The introduction of specific pathways of care for older trauma patients has been shown to decrease hospital length of stay and the overall rate of complications. The extent and scope of pathways and services for older major trauma patients in the UK is not currently known.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to map the current care pathways and provision of services for older people following major trauma in the UK.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of UK hospitals delivering care to major trauma patients (major trauma centres and trauma units). Data were collected on respondent and site characteristics, and local definitions of older trauma patients. To explore pathways for older people with major trauma, four clinical case examples were devised and respondents asked to complete responses that best illustrated the admission pathway for each.

RESULTS

Responses from 56 hospitals were included in the analysis, including from 25 (84%) of all major trauma centres (MTCs) in the UK. The majority of respondents defined 'old' by chronological age, most commonly patients 65 years and over. The specialty team with overall responsibility for the patient in trauma units was most likely to be acute medicine or acute surgery. Patients in MTCs were not always admitted under the care of the major trauma service. Assessment by a geriatrician within 72 hours of admission varied in both major trauma centres and trauma units and was associated with increased age.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlights variability in the admitting specialty team and subsequent management of older major trauma patients across hospitals in the UK. Variability appears to be related to patient condition as well as provision of local resources. Whilst lack of standardisation may be a result of local service configuration this has the potential to impact negatively on quality of care, multi-disciplinary working, and outcomes.

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.

Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of short-term mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on diagnostic test accuracy

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a representative frailty assessment tool in medicine. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine whether frailty defined based on the CFS could adequately predict short-term mortality in emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries were searched for eligible studies until December 23, 2021. We included studies in which frailty was measured by the CFS and short-term mortality was reported for ED patients. All studies were screened by two independent researchers. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) values were calculated based on the data extracted from each study. Additionally, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated for effect size analysis, and the area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristics was calculated. Outcomes were in-hospital and 1-month mortality rate for patients with the CFS scores of ≥5, ≥6, and ≥7.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 studies (n = 45,022) were included. Although there was no evidence of publication bias, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed. For the CFS score of ≥5, the PLR, NLR, and DOR values for in-hospital mortality were 1.446 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.325-1.578), 0.563 (95% CI 0.355-0.893), and 2.728 (95% CI 1.872-3.976), respectively. In addition, the pooled statistics for 1-month mortality were 1.566 (95% CI 1.241-1.976), 0.582 (95% CI 0.430-0.789), and 2.696 (95% CI 1.673-4.345), respectively. Subgroup analysis of trauma patients revealed that the CFS score of ≥5 could adequately predict in-hospital mortality (PLR 1.641, 95% CI 1.242-2.170; NLR 0.580, 95% CI 0.461-0.729; DOR 2.883, 95% CI 1.994-4.168). The AUC values represented sufficient to good diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence that is published to date suggests that the CFS is an accurate and reliable tool for predicting short-term mortality in emergency patients.

Psychological and psychosocial aspects of major trauma care in the United Kingdom: A scoping review of primary research

Introduction

More people are surviving major trauma, often with life changing injuries. Alongside physical injury, many survivors of major trauma experience psychological and psychosocial impacts. Presently, there is little guidance at the UK national level for psychological and psychosocial aspects of major trauma care. Set in the context of the regional model of major trauma care implemented in the UK in 2012, the purpose of this review was to identify and bring together primary research about psychological and psychosocial aspects of major trauma care in the UK to produce an overview of the field to date, identify knowledge gaps and set research priorities.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken. Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text and PROSPERO) were searched alongside a targeted grey literature search. Data from included studies were extracted using a predefined extraction form and underwent bibliometric analysis. Included studies were then grouped by type of research, summarised, and synthesised to produce a descriptive summary and overview of the field.

Results

The searches identified 5,975 articles. Following screening, 43 primary research studies were included in the scoping review. The scoping review, along with previous research, illustrates that psychological and psychosocial impacts are to be expected following major trauma. However, it also found that these aspects of care are commonly underserved and that there are inherent inequities across major trauma care pathways in the UK.

Conclusion

Though the scoping review identified a growing body of research investigating psychological and psychosocial aspects of major trauma care pathways in the UK, significant gaps in the evidence base remain. Research is needed to establish clinically effective psychological and psychosocial assessment tools, corresponding interventions, and patient-centred outcome measures so that survivors of major trauma (and family members or carers) receive the most appropriate care and intervention.

Frailty Assessment for Outcome Prediction of Patients With Prostate Cancer Receiving Radical Prostatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between frailty and postoperative complications in patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted for relevant cohort studies. A random-effect model was chosen to combine the results. Five cohort studies including 171,929 patients were included. Results showed that patients with frailty had higher risk of severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo IV complications, risk ratio [RR]: 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67 to 2.10, p < .001; I² = 18%) and all-cause mortality (RR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.86 to 4.50, p < 0.001; I² = 18%). Subgroup analyses showed consistent results in patients receiving open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and also in studies with univariate and multivariate analyses. In conclusion, preoperative frailty may be a predictor of severe postoperative complications and all-cause mortality of patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy.

Predicting 1 year mortality after traumatic injury using the Clinical Frailty Scale

BACKGROUND

Frailty is known to affect how people admitted with traumatic injuries recover during their inpatient stay and shortly after discharge. However, few studies have examined the effect of frailty on long-term mortality when adjusted for significant factors including age. We aimed to determine the effect of frailty on 1-year morality in older adults admitted with traumatic injuries.

METHODS

We undertook an observational study at the Severn Major Trauma Network's major trauma centre based in South West England. Patients ≥65 years old admitted between November 2018 and September 2019 with traumatic injuries were included. Isolated hip fractures and inpatient injuries were excluded. A geriatrician assessed all patients for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale. Follow-up occurred at 1 year. A multivariable Cox proportional baseline hazards model assessed the effect of frailty on time-to-mortality. The adjusted model included age, sex, multimorbidity, surgery, most injured site, injury severity, postinjury complications, and geriatrician review.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eighty-five patients were included. Median age was 81 years old (IQR 74-88), and median injury severity score was 13 (IQR 9-25). At 1 year 147 (25.1%) patients had died. Living with frailty was associated with mortality. The risk of dying increased with frailty severity. Compared to CFS 1-3: CFS 4 aHR = 1.73 (95% CI 0.89-3.36, p = 0.11); CFS 5 aHR = 3.82 (95% CI 2.11-6.93, p < 0.001); CFS 6 aHR = 4·05 (95% CI 2.21-7.45, p < 0.001); CFS 7-8 aHR = 6.57 (95% CI 3.43-12.59, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to demonstrate a consistent effect of frailty, at all levels of severity and independent of age, on older peoples' survival 1 year after traumatic injury. These data support performing an admission frailty assessment to aid long-term management decisions and provide opportunity to modify frailty to improve outcomes.

The elderly age criterion for increased in-hospital mortality in trauma patients: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

With an aging population, the number of elderly individuals exposed to traumatic injuries is increasing. The elderly age criterion for traumatic injuries has been inconsistent in the literature. This study aimed at specifying the elderly age criterion when the traumatic mortality rate increases.

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study that was conducted utilizing the data from the Emergency Department-based Injury In-depth Surveillance Registry of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, collected between January 2014 and December 2018 from 23 emergency departments. The outcome variable was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the adjusted mortality rate for each age group. By using the shape-restricted regression splines method, the relationship between age and adjusted traumatic mortality was plotted and the point where the gradient of the graph had the greatest variation was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 637,491 adult trauma patients were included. The number of in-hospital deaths was 6504 (1.0%). The age at which mortality increased the most was 65.06 years old. The adjusted odds ratio for the in-hospital mortality rate with age in the ≤ 64-year-old subgroup was 1.038 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.032-1.044) and in the ≥ 65-year-old subgroup was 1.059 (95% CI 1.050-1.068). The adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital mortality in the ≥ 65-year-old compared to the ≤ 64-year-old subgroup was 4.585 (95% CI 4.158-5.055, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the in-hospital mortality rate rose with increasing age and that the increase was the most rapid from the age of 65 years. We propose to define the elderly age criterion for traumatic injuries as ≥ 65 years of age.