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

Assessing the utility of frailty scores in triage: a comparative study of validated scales

Currently, there is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of frailty scales and their ability to enhance or support triage operations. This study aimed to assess the utility of three common frailty scales (CFS, PRISMA-7, ISAR) and determine their utility in the triage setting. This prospective observational monocentric study was conducted at Merano Hospital's Emergency Department (ED) from June 1st to December 31st, 2023. All patients attending this ED during the 80-day study period were included, and frailty scores were correlated with three outcomes: hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and severity of condition as assessed by ED physicians. Patients were categorized by age, and analyses were performed for the entire study population, patients aged 18-64, and those aged 65 or older. Univariate analysis was followed by multivariable analysis to evaluate whether frailty scores were independently associated with the outcomes. In multivariable analysis, none of the frailty scores were found to be associated with the study outcomes, except for the CFS, which was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, with an odds ratio of 1.752 (95% CI 1.148-2.674; p = 0.009) in the general population and 1.708 (95% CI 1.044-2.793; p = 0.033) in the population aged ≥ 65. Presently, available frailty scores do not appear to be useful in the triage context. Future research should consider developing new systems for accurate frailty assessment to support risk prediction in the triage assessment.

Development and validation of a nomogram for assessing comorbidity and frailty in triage: a multicentre observational study

Assessing patient frailty in the Emergency Department (ED) is crucial; however, triage frailty and comorbidity assessment scores developed in recent years are unsatisfactory. The underlying causes of this phenomenon could reside in the nature of the tools used, which were not designed specifically for the emergency context and, thus, are difficult to adapt to the emergency environment. The objective of this study was to create and internally validate a nomogram for identifying different levels of patient frailty during triage. Multicenter, prospective, observational exploratory study conducted in two ED. The study was conducted from April 1 to October 31, 2022. Following the triage assessment, the nurse collected variables related to the patient's comorbidities and chronic conditions using a predefined form. The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality rate. A total of 1345 patients were enrolled in this study; 6% died within 90 days. In the multivariate analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index, an altered motor condition, an altered cognitive condition, an autonomous chronic condition, arrival in an ambulance, and a previous hospitalization within 90 days were independently associated with death. The internal validation of the nomogram reported an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.91 (95% CI 0.884-0.937). A nomogram was created for assessing comorbidity and frailty during triage and was demonstrated to be capable of determining comorbidity and frailty in the ED setting. Integrating a tool capable of identifying frail patients at the first triage assessment could improve patient stratification.

Prolonged delirium during hospitalization is associated with worse long-term and short-term outcomes in patients with acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

The association between prolonged delirium during hospitalization and long-term prognosis in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has not been fully elucidated.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective registry study of patients with AHF admitted to the CICU at 2 hospitals from 2013 to 2021. We divided study patients into 3 groups according to the presence or absence of delirium and prolonged delirium as follows: no delirium, resolved delirium, or prolonged delirium. Main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 3-year mortality after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 1555 patients with AHF (median age, 80 years) were included in the analysis. Of these, 406 patients (26.1%) developed delirium. We divided patients with delirium into 2 groups: the resolved delirium group (n = 201) or the prolonged delirium group (n = 205). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models for long-term prognosis demonstrated that the prolonged delirium group had a higher incidence of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.14) and non-cardiovascular death (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.78) than the resolved delirium group. Regarding in-hospital outcomes, multivariate logistic regression modeling showed that prolonged delirium is associated with all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 9.55; 95% confidential interval [CI], 2.99 to 30.53) and cardiovascular death (OR, 13.02; 95% CI, 2.86 to 59.27) compared with resolved delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged delirium is associated with worse long-term and short-term outcomes than resolved delirium in patients with AHF.

A novel scale for triage assessment of frailty in the emergency department (ED-FraS): a prospective videotaped study

BACKGROUND

Rapid recognition of frailty in older patients in the ED is an important first step toward better geriatric care in the ED. We aimed to develop and validate a novel frailty assessment scale at ED triage, the Emergency Department Frailty Scale (ED-FraS).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study enrolling adult patients aged 65 years or older who visited the ED at an academic medical center. The entire triage process was recorded, and triage data were collected, including the Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale (TTAS). Five physician raters provided ED-FraS levels after reviewing videos. A modified TTAS (mTTAS) incorporating ED-FraS was also created. The primary outcome was hospital admission following the ED visit, and secondary outcomes included the ED length of stay (EDLOS) and total ED visit charges.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients were included. Twenty-seven percent of the patients were frail according to the ED-FraS. The majority of ED-FraS was level 2 (57%), while the majority of TTAS was level 3 (81%). There was a weak agreement between the ED-FraS and TTAS (kappa coefficient of 0.02). The hospital admission rate and charge were highest at ED-FraS level 5 (severely frail), whereas the EDLOS was longest at level 4 (moderately frail). The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) in predicting hospital admission for the TTAS, ED-FraS, and mTTAS were 0.57, 0.62, and 0.63, respectively. The ED-FraS explained more variation in EDLOS (R2 = 0.096) compared with the other two methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED-Fras tool is a simple and valid screening tool for identifying frail older adults in the ED. It also can complement and enhance ED triage systems. Further research is needed to test its real-time use at ED triage internationally.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Frailty Knowledge, Use of Screening Tools, and Educational Challenges in Emergency Departments in Ireland: A Multisite Survey

BACKGROUND

Recognizing frailty and providing evidenced-based management in busy emergency departments is challenging. Understanding the knowledge and educational needs of ED staff is important to design training that might improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore frailty knowledge of ED staff, use of frailty screening instruments in Irish emergency departments, and educational challenges in the emergency department.

METHODS

A multisite survey of ED staff (different specialties) was conducted between April and September 2021. An anonymous online survey was distributed via email. Free-text sections were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 168 staff (nursing, medical and allied health) participated, representing 9 of 26 Irish emergency departments (35%). Most respondents were nurses (n = 78, 46%). Less than half of respondents had received frailty identification training (n = 81, 48%). One-fifth of emergency doctors and nurses (20%) were unsure how to define frailty. Major barriers to ED frailty screening were resource deficits, insufficient diagnostic pathways from the emergency departments, and lack of education on suitable instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the ED staff surveyed relied on clinical judgment rather than formal training in frailty identification. A high proportion reported poor knowledge and low confidence in recognizing frailty. Dedicated staff with frailty management expertise, bespoke education initiatives, and clearly defined frailty screening pathways may help address the issues identified.

Prevalence of frailty and associated factors in older adults seeking care at Swedish emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Internationally, prolonged length of stay for older adults in the emergency department (ED) is associated with increased risk of in-hospital adverse events. In Sweden patients 65 years and older account for 35% of emergency visits, and according to consensus from an international expert group, all persons over 70 should be screened for frailty. This is not routinely done in Swedish EDs, and therefore, knowledge about prevalence, characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with frailty is limited.

AIM

To describe the prevalence of frailty and associated factors in older adults seeking care at Swedish EDs.

METHODS

The study has a cross-sectional design. Data was collected at three hospital-based EDs, varying in level and size of setting, for one month. Patients age 70 and older presenting at the EDs and agreed to participate were screened for frailty using the FRail Elderly Support researcH group (FRESH) instrument. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics to assess the distribution of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the association between frailty and demographic characteristics, and Cox regression was used to model the association between frailty and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 3101 patients were eligible for inclusion; of these, 984 (32%) were included and screened for frailty. Of the final sample, 57.3% were assessed as frail. Characteristics significantly associated with frailty were living in a residential care facility, age (> 80 years), being a woman and arriving with emergency medical service (EMS). There was a significant association between frailty and admittance to in-hospital care.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows a high prevalence of frailty in older people. Factors associated with frailty were living in a residential care facility, age ≥ 80 years, being a woman and arriving with EMS to the ED and being admitted to in-hospital care. Frailty screening should be incorporated in the triage system to identify frail patients who need tailored interventions. More studies using the FRESH instrument are needed to further confirm our findings and to develop the methods for screening for frailty in the ED.

Frailty and mortality: Utility of Frail-VIG index in ED short-stay units for older adults

BACKGROUND

Frailty assessment allows the identification of patients at risk of death. The aim here was to study the ability of Frail-VIG Index (FI-VIG) in order to discriminate frailty groups of older adults and garner its correlation with mortality in an Emergency-Department Short-Stay Unit (ED-SSU).

METHODS

Our observational, single-center, prospective study consecutively included patients over 65-years-old admitted between March 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021.

RESULTS

302 patients were included (56 % women), mean age 83 ± 8 years, and 39.1 % of them had a functional disability whilst 16.5 % of them had dementia. A total of 174 patients (58 %) met the frailty criteria (FI-VIG ≥ 0.2): 111 (63.8 %) had mild frailty (FI-VIG 0.2-0.36), 52 (29.9 %) had moderate frailty (FI-VIG 0.36-0.55), and 11 (6.3 %) had advanced frailty (FI-VIG > 0.55). Mortality at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year was analyzed: no frailty was 6.3 %, 10.8 %, and 12.5 %, respectively; mild frailty was 10.8 %, 22.5 %, and 22.5 %, respectively; moderate frailty was 25 %, 34.6 %, and 42.3 %, respectively; advanced frailty was 36.4 %, 54.5 %, and 3.6 %, respectively. This shows the significant differences between the groups (1-year mortality p < 0.001). Mild frailty vs. non-frail HR was 2.47 (95 %CI 1.12-5.46), moderate frailty vs. non-frail HR was 6.93 (95 %CI 3.16-15.23), and advanced frailty vs. non-frail HR was 11.29 (95 %CI 3.54-36.03). The mean test time was 7 min.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a strong correlation between frailty degree and mortality at 1, 6, and 12 months. FI-VIG is fast and easy-to-use in this setting. It is routine implementation in ED-SSUs could enable early risk stratification.

Reliability and validity of a frailty assessment tool in specialized burn care, a retrospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a predictor of adverse outcomes in elderly patients. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is an often-used frailty assessment instrument. However, the CFS's reliability and validity in patients with burn injuries are unknown. This study aimed to assess the CFS's inter-rater reliability and validity (predictive validity, known group validity and convergent validity) in patients with burn injuries treated to specialized burn care.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 50 years with burn injuries, with a primary admission in 2015-2018, were included. Based on information in the electronic patient files, a research team member scored the CFS retrospectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Krippendorff's α. Validity was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Patients with a CFS ≥ 5 were considered frail.

RESULTS

In total, 540 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.8 years (SD 11.5) and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) burned of 8.5%. The CFS was used to assess frailty in 540 patients and the reliability of the CFS was scored for 212 patients. Mean CFS was 3.4(SD 2.0). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, Krippendorff's α 0.69 (95%CI 0.62-0.74). A positive frailty screening was predictive of a non-home discharge location (OR 3.57, 95%CI 2.16-5.93), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR 1.06-8.77), and a higher mortality rate within 12 months after discharge (OR 4.61, 95%CI 1.99-10.65) after adjustment for age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. Frail patients were more likely to be older (for<70 vs. ≥70 years odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.95-4.25) and their comorbidities were more severe (ASA ≥3 vs 1-2 OR 6.43, 95%CI 4.26-9.70) (known group validity). The CFS was significantly related (rSpearman=0.55) to the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) frailty screening, reflecting a fair-good correlation between the CFS and DSMS frailty screening outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The Clinical Frailty scale is reliable and has shown its validity, including its association with adverse outcomes in patients with burn injury admitted to specialized burn care. Early frailty assessment with the CFS must be considered, to optimize early recognition and treatment of frailty.

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).

Assessment of frailty by paramedics using the clinical frailty scale - an inter-rater reliability and accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Frailty assessment by paramedics in the prehospital setting is understudied. The goals of this study were to assess the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of frailty assessment by paramedics using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study with paramedics exposed to 30 clinical vignettes created from real-life situations. There was no teaching intervention prior to the study and paramedics were only provided with the French version of the CFS (definitions and pictograms). The primary outcome was the inter-rater reliability of the assessment. The secondary outcome was the accuracy, compared with the expert-based assessment. Reliability was determined by calculating an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy was assessed through a mixed effects logistic regression model. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by considering that an assessment was still accurate if the score differed from no more than 1 level.

RESULTS

A total of 56 paramedics completed the assessment. The overall assessment was found to have good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 [95%CI 0.81-0.93]). The overall accuracy was moderate at 60.6% (95%CI 54.9-66.1) when considering the full scale. It was however much higher (94.8% [95%CI 92.0-96.7] when close assessments were considered as accurate. The only factor associated with accurate assessment was field experience.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of frailty by paramedics was reliable in this vignette-based study. However, the accuracy deserved to be improved. Future research should focus on the clinical impact of these results and on the association of prehospital frailty assessment with patient outcomes.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered on the Open Science Framework registries ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VDUZY ).

Frailty and prognosis of patients with kidney transplantation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of frailty among candidates and recipients of kidney transplantation (KT) is well-established, yet the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes following KT remains uncertain. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the aforementioned relationship.

METHODS

The present study conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant observational studies that compared mortality risk and other clinical outcomes of KT recipients with and without frailty. Two authors independently conducted data collection, literature searching, and statistical analysis. The results were synthesized using a heterogeneity-incorporating random-effects model.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, 6279 patients from 13 cohort studies were included, and 1435 patients (22.9%) were with frailty before KT. There were higher mortality rates among frail patients at admission, compared to those without frailty (risk ratio [RR]: 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57 to 2.47, p < 0.001; I2 = 19%). Subgroup analysis suggested the association between frailty and high mortality risk after KT was consistent in studies of frailty assessed via Physical Frailty Phenotype or other methods, and in studies of follow-up duration < or ≥ 5 years. In addition, frailty was associated with higher incidence of delayed graft function (RR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.21 to 2.61, p = 0.003; I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (RR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.15 to 3.08, p = 0.01; I2 = 0%), and longer hospitalization (RR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.97, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Following KT, frail patients are at higher risks for all-cause mortality, delayed graft function, postoperative complications, and longer hospital stays.

Prognostic Value of a New Tool (the 3D/3D+) for Predicting 30-Day Mortality in Emergency Department Patients Aged 75 Years and Older

The 3D/3D+ multidimensional geriatric assessment tool provides an optimal model of emergency care for patients aged 75 and over who attend the Emergency Department (ED). The baseline, or static, component (3D) stratifies the degree of frailty prior to the acute illness, while the current, or dynamic, component (3D+) assesses the multidimensional impact caused by the acute illness and helps to guide the choice of care facility for patients upon their discharge from the ED. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the 3D/3D+ to predict short- and long-term adverse outcomes in ED patients aged 75 years and older. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the predictors of mortality 30 days after 3D/3D+ assessment. Two hundred and seventy-eight patients (59.7% women) with a median age of 86 years (interquartile range: 83-90) were analyzed. According to the baseline component (3D), 83.1% (95% CI: 78.2-87.3) presented some degree of frailty. The current component (3D+) presented alterations in 60.1% (95% CI: 54.1-65.9). The choice of care facility at ED discharge indicated by the 3D/3D+ was considered appropriate in 96.4% (95% CI: 93.0-98.0). Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 19.4%. Delirium and functional decline were the dimensions on the 3D/3D+ that were independently associated with 30-day mortality. These two dimensions had an area under receiver operating characteristic of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86) for predicting 30-day mortality. The 3D/3D+ tool enhances the provision of comprehensive care by ED professionals, guides them in the choice of patients' discharge destination, and has a prognostic validity that serves to establish future therapeutic objectives.

Discordance in Frailty Measures in Old Community Dwelling People with Multimorbidity - A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

Assessment of frailty is a key method to identify older people in need of holistic care. However, agreement between different frailty instrument varies. Thus, groups classified as frail by different instruments are not completely overlapping. This study evaluated differences in sociodemographic factors, cognition, functional status, and quality of life between older persons with multimorbidity who were discordantly classified by five different frailty instruments, with focus on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FP).

Participants and Methods

This was a cross-sectional study in a community-dwelling setting. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥75 years old, ≥3 visits to the emergency department the past 18 months, and ≥3 diagnoses according to ICD-10. 450 participants were included. Frailty was assessed by CFS, FP, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Grip Strength and Walking Speed.

Results

385 participants had data on all frailty instruments. Prevalence of frailty ranged from 34% (CFS) to 75% (SPPB). Nine percent of participants were non-frail by all instruments, 20% were frail by all instruments and 71% had discordant frailty classifications. Those who were frail according to CFS but not by the other instruments had lower cognition and functional status. Those who were frail according to FP but not CFS were, to a larger extent, women, lived alone, had higher cognitive ability and functional status.

Conclusion

The CFS might not identify physically frail women in older community-dwelling people with multimorbidity. They could thus be at risk of not be given the attention their frail condition need.

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.