The Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinimetric Properties of Screening Instruments to Identify Frail Older Adults Attending Emergency Departments: A Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Are assessment measures for components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health reproducible for use on pre-frail and frail older adults? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the internal consistency, reliability and measurement error of assessment measures for body structure and function (postural balance, muscle strength, cardiorespiratory function and physical fitness), activity (walking and mobility) and participation (quality of life and social reintegration) outcomes for use on pre-frail and frail older adults.

METHODS

Searches were performed in six databases (Medline, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Lilacs) and reproducibility studies were included. Cronbach's alpha and the classification proposed by Terwee et al. (2007) were used for the interpretation of internal consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Munro classification were used for the determination of reliability. The standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) as well as percentages of error (SEM%) and change (MDC%) were calculated. Methodological quality of the studies was appraised using Boxes 4, 6 and 7 of the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the present systematic review, with a total of 835 (82.4 years; 582 women and 253 men) pre-frail and frail older adults analyzed. Seven measures were identified for the assessment of body structure and function, activity and participation outcomes (Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility, Self-Assessment of Physical Fitness, Sarcopenia Quality of Life, Reintegration to Normal Living Index, Two-Minute Walking test, Six-Minute Walking test and Ten-Meter Walking test). The following measurement properties were identified: internal consistency = 0.84 (mean Cronbach's alpha); reliability = 0.87 (mean ICC); SEM range = 0.06 to 10.10; MDC range = 0.13 to 28.10; SEM% range = 5.2 % to 9.5 %; and MDC% range = 10.7 % to 28.5 %.

CONCLUSION

The present systematic review found adequate internal consistency, high reliability and an acceptable measurement error for assessment measures of body structure and function, activity and participation outcomes for use on pre-frail and frail older adults.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Frailty Screening Instruments Validated for Use among Older Adults Attending Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Early identification of frailty can prevent functional decline. Although multiple frailty screens exist for use in Emergency Departments (EDs), few are validated against diagnostic standards such as comprehensive geriatric assessment. To examine the diagnostic accuracy of ED screens for frailty, scientific databases were searched for prospective diagnostic accuracy test studies from January 2000 to September 2022. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using QUADAS-C. Psychometric properties were extracted and analysed using R. Six studies involving 1,663 participants describing seven frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7, CFS, VIP, FRESH, BPQ, TRST, and ISAR), representing 13 unique data points, were included. The mean age of participants ranged from 76 to 86 years. The proportion that was female ranged from 45 to 60%. The pooled prevalence rate of frailty was high at 59%. The pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.91) versus 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.88) for specificity. Pooled accuracy based on area under the ROC curve was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90). Although few studies were found, limiting the ability to conduct a meta-analysis of individual instruments, available frailty screens can accurately diagnose frailty in older adults attending the ED. As specificity was comparatively low, additional assessment may be required to identify those requiring inpatient management or onward community referral. Further study is therefore required.

Higher frailty levels are associated with lower cognitive test scores in a multi-country study: evidence from the study on global ageing and adult health

Background

Frailty has been recognized as a growing issue in older adults, with recent evidence showing that this condition heralds several health-related problems, including cognitive decline. The objective of this work is to determine if frailty is associated with cognitive decline among older adults from different countries.

Methods

We analyzed the baseline the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE), that includes six countries (Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, China, Russia, and India). A cross-section analysis was used to assess how Frailty was related with the Clinical Frailty Scale decision tree, while cognitive decline was evaluated using standardized scores of tests used in SAGE.

Results

A total of 30,674 participants aged 50 years or older were included. There was an association between frailty levels and cognitive performance. For example, women had an inverse relationship between frailty levels and cognitive scores, even when comparing robust category with frailty level 2 (RRR = 0.85; p = 0.41), although the relative risks decrease significantly at level 3 (RRR = 0.66; p = 0.03). When controlling for age, the relative risks between frailty levels 4 to 7 significantly decreased as cognitive performance increased (RRR = 0.46, RRR = 0.52, RRR = 0.44, RRR = 0.32; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results show an association between frailty levels measured in a novel way, and cognitive decline across different cultural settings.

Validation of the Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) among Older Adults in the Emergency Department

Although several short-risk-prediction instruments are used in the emergency department (ED), there remains insufficient evidence to guide healthcare professionals on their use. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is an established screen comprising three Likert scales examining the risk of three adverse outcomes among community-dwelling older adults at one-year: institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and death, which are scored from one (rare/minimal) to five (certain/extreme) and combined into an Overall RISC score. In the present study, the RISC was externally validated by comparing it with different frailty screens to predict risk of hospitalisation (30-day readmission), prolonged length of stay (LOS), one-year mortality, and institutionalisation among 193 consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending a large university hospital ED in Western Ireland, assessed for frailty, determined by comprehensive geriatric assessment. The median LOS was 8 ± 9 days; 20% were re-admitted <30 days; 13.5% were institutionalised; 17% had died; and 60% (116/193) were frail. Based on the area under the ROC curve scores (AUC), the Overall RISC score had the greatest diagnostic accuracy for predicting one-year mortality and institutionalisation: AUC 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68-0.87) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64-0.82), respectively. None of the instruments were accurate in predicting 30-day readmission (AUC all <0.70). The Overall RISC score had good accuracy for identifying frailty (AUC 0.84). These results indicate that the RISC is an accurate risk-prediction instrument and frailty measure in the ED.

Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7

Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly used, short frailty screens to an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in an urban University Hospital ED. Consecutive attendees aged ≥70 years were screened by trained raters, blind to the CGA, with the Variable Indicative of Placement risk (VIP), 3 and 4-item versions, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and PRISMA-7. Accuracy was measured from the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). In total, 197 patients were included, median age 79 (±10); 46% were female. Half (49%) were confirmed as frail after CGA. All instruments differentiated frail from non-frail states, although the CFS (AUROC: 0.91) and PRISMA-7 (AUROC: 0.90) had higher accuracy compared to the VIP-4 (AUROC: 0.84) and VIP-3 (AUROC: 0.84). The CFS was significantly more accurate than the VIP-3 (p = 0.026) or VIP-4 (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference between the CFS and PRISMA-7 (p = 0.90). The CFS and PRISMA-7 were more accurate and should be considered in preference to the VIP (3 or 4-item versions) to identify frailty in EDs.

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Medication Adherence in Cardiovascular Disease: A COSMIN Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several medication adherence patient-reported outcome measures (MA-PROMs) are available for use in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, little evidence is available on the most suitable MA-PROM to measure medication adherence in patients with CVD. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the measurement properties of MA-PROMs for patients with CVD and identify the most suitable MA-PROM for use in clinical practice or future research in patients with CVD.

METHODS

An electronic search of nine databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify studies that have reported on at least one of the measurement properties of MA-PROMs in patients with CVD. The methodological quality of the studies included in the systematic review was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 40 MA-PROMs were identified in the 84 included studies. This review found there is a lack of moderate-to-high quality evidence of sufficient content validity for all MA-PROMs for patients with CVDs. Only eight MA-PROMs were classified in COSMIN recommendation category A. They exhibited sufficient content validity with very low-quality evidence, and moderate-to-high quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The 28 MA-PROMs that meet the requirements for COSMIN recommendation category 'B' require further validation studies. Four MA-PROMs including Hill-Bone Compliance Medication Scale (HBMS), the five-item Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5), Maastricht Utrecht Adherence in Hypertension (MUAH), and MUAH-16 have insufficient results with high quality evidence for at least one measurement property and consequently are not recommended for use in patients with CVD. Two MA-PROMs (Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale [ARMS] and ARMS-7) are comprehensive and have moderate to high quality evidence for four sufficient measurement properties.

CONCLUSION

From the eight MA-PROMs in COSMIN recommendation category A, ARMS and ARMS-7 were selected as the most suitable MA-PROMs for use in patients with CVD. They are the most comprehensive with be best quality evidence to support their use in clinical practice and research.