Integrating the clinical frailty scale with emergency department triage systems for elder patients: A prospective study

Beyond Nurse Efficiency: A Multilevel Analysis of Nurse, Contextual, and Patient-Related Factors in Triage Duration

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing triage duration in emergency departments, comparing the impact of individual nurse characteristics with contextual and patient-related variables.

METHODS

This monocentric retrospective observational design, conducted from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2022, analyzed 382,027 triage events at Merano Hospital. Data from periods affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were excluded to ensure analysis under standard emergency conditions. Triage durations were evaluated using statistical models, including random effects, to capture both individual and systemic influences.

RESULTS

A total of 51 nurses performed triage, with a median time of 1.9 minutes (interquartile range, 1.1-3.7). Nurse-related factors accounted for only 11.5% of the variability, whereas patient and contextual factors had greater influence. Older patients had longer triage times (+0.0079 min/y; P<.001). Arrival by ambulance increased triage time by 0.287 minutes compared with independent arrivals (P<.001). Higher priority levels were linked to shorter triage times, with priority 1 patients assessed 0.604 minutes faster (P<.001). Night admissions reduced triage times by 2.137 minutes (P<.001), whereas increased emergency department workload prolonged them (+0.692 minutes per additional patient; P<.001).

DISCUSSION

Triage models should incorporate a broader range of contextual and patient-related factors rather than focusing predominantly on nurse efficiency. Further research is needed to comprehensively identify the determinants of triage performance, with the goal of optimizing both speed and quality in emergency care.

Frailty-aware Care in the Emergency Department

Older adults living with frailty are a growing population that will increasingly present to the emergency department (ED). This is a population that is at increased risk of adverse health outcomes and most EDs are not designed with their needs in mind. Instead of characterizing patients based on chronologic age or existing triage tools, frailty assessment offers an accurate, feasible, and patient-centered approach to improving care, and should be performed in the ED.

Development of FastFrail-a rapid frailty screening tool for medical calls: a development study based on cross-sectional data from an urgent care centre in Norway

OBJECTIVE

To develop a rapid screening tool for the identification of frailty in medical calls and other out-of-hospital acute care services.

DESIGN

Development study based on cross-sectional data. A set of potential items were developed based on existing frailty tools and other relevant literature by a panel with geriatric and primary care expertise. The items and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) were administered on a convenience sample of older urgent care patients. Further development of the tool was based on statistical analyses of this data material and final discussions in the panel.

SETTING

Urgent care centre in Norway, data collected between January and August 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients ≥70 years were eligible for inclusion, with the exception of patients triaged to the highest urgency level and patients not able to answer questions with no next of kin present.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Potential items associated with frailty by CFS, measured by explained variance (adjusted R2 values from linear regression analyses).

RESULTS

Nine potential items were developed and administered on 200 patients (59% female), of whom 48% were 70-79 years, 38% were 80-89 years and 14% were ≥90 years. The median CFS score was 4 (living with very mild frailty). Receiving help weekly, being homebound and using a walking aid were identified as strong indicators of frailty (adjusted R2 values 59%, 48% and 43%, respectively). Together these three factors could explain 74% of the variation in CFS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving help weekly, being homebound and using a walking aid are strong indicators of frailty among urgent care patients. We developed a frailty screening tool for medical calls-FastFrail-consisting of three simple, binary questions (yes/no) on these aspects. We hypothesise that FastFrail can supplement traditional symptom-based triage and enable more accurate assessment of older adults calling for acute medical help. We intend to test the tool in clinical practice.

What can we learn from 68 000 clinical frailty scale scores? Evaluating the utility of frailty assessment in emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) in England are under significant strain, with increasing attendances and extended wait times, affecting frail older adults. The clinical frailty scale (CFS) has been implemented as a tool to assess frailty in ED settings, but its reliability and predictive accuracy as a screening tool remain debated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use and variability of the CFS in EDs and its association with patient outcomes, including discharge rates, length of stay, readmission and mortality.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of ED attendances at two London (UK) hospitals from 2017 to 2021. Data included CFS scores, demographics, clinical observations and outcomes. Comparative statistics, logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards models and competing risk regression were applied to examine CFS predictive validity.

RESULTS

In a sample of 123 324 ED visits, CFS scores strongly correlated with adverse outcomes: e.g. for long-term mortality (n = 33 475, events = 8871), each CFS single-point increase was associated with a 25% increase in mortality risk (95% CI 1.23-1.26). CFS scores varied significantly between raters and across visits, median difference two levels (interquartile range 1-3). Intraclass correlation coefficient analysis showed that 33.1% of CFS score differences was attributable to between-patient differences, 15.4% to inter-rater differences, with 51.5% residual variance from non-frailty factors, such as acute illness severity.

CONCLUSION

The CFS is associated with crucial patient outcomes in the ED. Inter-rater variability and potentially confounding factors can limit its consistency. Automation to enhance CFS score reliability should be explored as a means to support proactive management.

Evaluating the Prognostic Value of Adding Frailty to Triage Assessment in Elderly Patients With Lower Acuity Presentations in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with adverse health outcomes in elderly patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Assessing frailty in the elderly presenting to the ED, alongside triage, can predict adverse health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic performance of frailty assessment added to triage evaluation in patients with low acuity triage level.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective cohort study conducted between November 2022 and August 2023. Patients ≥65 years old admitted to ED with urgent and nonurgent triage levels were included. The patients were categorized by triage level and frailty status classified by the Clinical Frailty Scale. The prognostic performance of triage, frailty, and the combined use of triage and frailty in predicting 30-day mortality, hospitalization, ED revisit, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ED disposition were determined.

RESULTS

The study included 1143 patients, of whom 837 (73.2%) were in the urgent triage category. There were 618 (54.1%) in the frail patient group. In predicting 30-day mortality, triage had a relative risk (RR) of 2.22 (95% CI: 1.19-4.15), sensitivity 86% (95% CI: 76-93), specificity 28% (95% CI: 35-30), frailty had an RR of 3.88 (95% CI: 2.20-6.84), sensitivity 82% (95% CI: 71-89), specificity, 48% (95% CI: 45-51), and combined triage and frailty these values were RR 7.08 (95%CI: 2.24-22.37), sensitivity 95% (95% CI: 86-99), specificity 30% (95% CI: 26-33).

CONCLUSION

Adding assessment of frailty to triage may enhance the prognostic performance in predicting 30-day mortality among older adults presenting to the ED with lower acuity triage level.

Experiences of the emergency department environment: a qualitative study with caregivers of people with dementia

ED crowding and boarding adversely impact older patients' care and outcomes. Little is known about how ED crowding impacts persons living with dementia, a vulnerable population. This study sought to explore ED experiences of caregivers of people with dementia during a period of ED crowding and boarding. We performed semi-structured interviews with caregivers of people with dementia with an ED visit during a period of ED crowding and boarding at two public hospitals experiencing a threefold increase in boarding from pre-pandemic levels. Participants were recruited via chart review. We coded data using an inductive approach. Three themes emerged from 29 caregiver interviews: (1) difficulty obtaining assistance, (2) patient harms, and (3) concerns about triage and rooming processes. First, caregivers described having to be proactive to obtain symptom control and assistance with mobility. Second, caregivers observed harms of noise and stimulation provoking agitation and delays in administration of routine medications. Third, caregivers felt it was inappropriate for people with dementia to receive care in waiting room chairs or to receive prolonged hallway care. Caregivers advocated for preferential considerations for rooming and rapid assessment to avoid agitation, facilitatd access to ED staff, and promote patient comfort. Caregivers of people with dementia associated ED environments with difficulty obtaining assistance, patient harms, and triage concerns. Strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of ED crowding on people with dementia should focus on environmental modifications, uptriage of people with dementia, supporting activities of daily living and mobility, and innovation around patient disposition.

Addition of the clinical frailty scale to triage tools and early warning scores improves mortality prognostication at 30 days: A prospective observational multicenter study

Objectives

Frailty, assessed with clinical frailty scale (CFS), alone or in combination with aggregated vital signs, has been proposed as a measure to better predict mortality of older patients in the emergency department (ED), but the added predictive value to conventional triage is unclear.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study in three EDs in Sweden that evaluated the prognostic performance of the CFS alone or in combination with the national early warning score (NEWS), triage early warning score (TEWS) or the rapid emergency triage and treatment system (RETTS) triage tool using logistic regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality with 7- and 90-day mortality and admission as secondary outcomes reported as area under the receiver operating curve (AuROC) scores with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, predictive values, and likelihood ratios are reported for all models.

Results

A total of 1832 patients were included with 17 (0.9%), 57 (3.1%), and 121 (6.6%) patients dying within 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. The admission rate was 43% (795/1832). Frailty (CFS > 4) was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio 6, 95% CI 3‒12, p < 0.01). Prognostication of 30-day mortality was similar for all CFS-based models and better compared with models without CFS. The AuROC (95% CI) improved for RETTS from 0.67 (0.61‒0.74) to 0.83 (0.79‒0.88) (p = 0.008), for NEWS from 0.53 (0.45‒0.61) to 0.82 (0.77‒0.87) (p < 0.001), and for TEWS from 0.63 (0.55‒0.71) to 0.82 (0.77‒0.87) (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Frailty measured with the CFS in combination with RETTS or structured vital sign assessment using NEWS or TEWS was better at prognosticating 30-day mortality compared to RETTS or early warnings score alone. Improved prognostication provides more realistic expectations and allows for informed discussions with patients and initiation of individualized treatment plans early in the ED process.

Comparative Clinical Characteristics of Frail Older Adults in the Emergency Department: Long-Term Care Hospital versus Community Residence

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Older patients from long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) presenting to emergency departments (EDs) exhibit a higher prevalence of frailty than those from the community. However, no study has examined frailty in patients from LTCHs in the ED. This study compared frailty in older patients from LTCHs and the community.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from the EDs of three university hospitals between 1 August and 31 October 2023, involving 5908 patients (515 from LTCHs and 5393 from the community). The Korean version of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-K) was used to assess individuals aged 65 and older. We compared clinical characteristics, frailty, length of stay (LOS), and diagnosis between patients from LTCHs (LTCH group) and the community (community group).

RESULTS

Among ED patients, 55.0% and 35.2% in the LTCH and the community groups, respectively, were frail (p < 0.001). Of these, 71.7% in the LTCH group were hospitalized compared with 53.1% in the community group (p = 0.001). The odds ratio for in-hospital mortality was 4.910 (95% CI 1.458-16.534, p = 0.010) for frail LTCH patients and 3.748 (95% CI 2.599-5.405, p < 0.001) for frail community patients, compared to non-frail patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients from LTCHs with frailty had higher hospital admission rates and increased in-hospital mortality compared to those in the community at the same frailty level. This study offers essential insights into the characteristics of older patients in LTCHs for healthcare administrators and medical staff worldwide.

Frailty means falling between the cracks: A qualitative study exploring emergency nurses' understanding of frailty and its use in informing clinical decision-making related to acuity, care, and disposition

THE PURPOSE

Of this study was to understand emergency nurses' use of frailty to inform care, disposition decision-making, and further assessment.

METHODS

A qualitative, descriptive, exploratory approach was used. Field notes from group discussions held during a conference presession on frailty and post-session evaluation data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two common ideas threaded these discussions: frailty as vulnerability to "falling through the cracks" and that of an iceberg. Participants stressed the broad and expansive ramifications of frailty, and lack of structure/process to accurately describe, quantify, and utilize the concept. Participants described issues of physical and emotional/social fragility, including being unable to complete activities of daily living independently; also of concern were the patients' social determinants of health and financial challenges.

CONCLUSION

The conceptual understanding of frailty encompassed physical, social, cognitive, and access deficits. Emergency nurses are aware of this concept and would conduct formal frailty screening if provided with training, time, and resources.

Frailty is associated with 30-day mortality: a multicentre study of Swedish emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Older patients living with frailty have an increased risk for adverse events. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a 9-point frailty assessment instrument that has shown promise to identify frail emergency department (ED) patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between CFS scores and 30-day mortality in an ED setting when assessments are made by regular ED staff.

METHOD

This was a prospective multicentre observational study carried out between May and November 2021 at three EDs in Sweden, where frailty via CFS is routinely assessed by ED staff. All patients ≥65 years of age were eligible for inclusion. Mortality at 7, 30 and 90 days, admission rate, ED and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared between patients living with frailty (CFS≥5) and robust patients. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 1840 ED visits of patients aged ≥65 years with CFS assessments done during the study period were analysed, of which 606 (32.9%) were patients living with frailty. Mortality after the index visit was higher in patients living with frailty at 7 days (2.6% vs 0.2%), 30 days (7.9% vs 0.9%) and 90 days (15.5% vs 2.4%). Adjusted ORs for mortality for those with frailty compared with more robust patients were 9.9 (95% CI 2.1 to 46.5) for 7-day, 6.0 (95% CI 3.0 to 12.2) for 30-day and 5.7 (95% CI 3.6 to 9.1) 90-day mortality. Patients living with frailty had higher admission rates, 58% versus 36%, a difference of 22% (95% CI 17% to 26%), longer ED LOS, 5 hours:08 min versus 4 hours:36 min, a difference of 31 min (95% CI 14 to 50), and longer in-hospital LOS, 4.8 days versus 2.7 days, a difference of 2.2 days (95% CI 1.2 to 3.0).

CONCLUSION

Patients living with frailty, had significantly higher mortality and admission rates as well as longer ED and in-hospital LOS compared with robust patients. The results confirm the capability of the CFS to risk stratify short-term mortality in older ED patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04877028.

The Association Between Frailty Evaluated by Clinical Frailty Scale and Mortality of Older Patients in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Frailty epitomizes the most complex consequence of an aging population. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of frailty, measured using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), on outcomes of older people in an emergency department (ED).

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study enrolling patients aged 65 years and older in a medical center of Taiwan between March 8, 2021, and November 30, 2021. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality rate. Individuals were categorized into three groups based on the CFS scores. Logistic regression was employed to examine the influence of frailty on clinical outcomes following covariate adjustment. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log rank tests.

Results

A total of 473 individuals were included in the study, with a mean age of 82.1 years, and 60.5% of them were males. The 90-day mortality rate was 10.6%. Among these groups, the CFS score 7-9 group had the highest 90-day mortality rate (15.9%), followed by the CFS score 4-6 group (8.0%) and the CFS score 1-3 group (7.1%). The multiple logistic regression analyses demonstrated a significant impact of CFS score on prognosis, with adjusted odd ratios of 1.24 (95% CI 1.06-1.47) for 90-day mortality, 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.31) for hospitalization, and 1.30 (95% CI 1.12-1.52) for 180-day mortality. The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a significantly higher 90-day mortality rate for patients with high CFS scores (Log rank tests, p = 0.019).

Conclusion

In the older ED population, the severity of frailty assessed by the CFS emerged as a significant and important prognostic factor for hospitalization, 90-day mortality, and 180-day mortality.

Validation of the Korean Version of the Clinical Frailty Scale-Adjusted Korean Triage and Acuity Scale for Older Patients in the Emergency Department

Background and Objectives: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), used to screen for prehospital frailty in patients aged >65 years, is simple, time-efficient, and has been validated in emergency departments (EDs). In this study, we analyzed whether the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS) classification by level in older patients determined to have frailty based on the Korean version of the CFS increases the triage performance of the current KTAS. Materials and Methods: The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. This study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from three ED centers. Patients with a CFS score ranging from five (mildly frail) to nine (terminally ill) were categorized into the frailty group. We upgraded the KTAS classification of the frailty group by one level of urgency and defined this as the CFS-KTAS. Results: The cutoff values for predicting admission were three and two for the KTAS and CFS-KTAS, respectively. A significant difference was observed in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve between the KTAS and CFS-KTAS. To predict ICU admission, the cutoff score was two for both scales. A significant difference was observed in the AUROC curve between the KTAS and CFS-KTAS. For predicting in-hospital mortality, the cutoff score was two for both scales. A significant difference was observed in the AUROC curve between the KTAS and CFS-KTAS. Conclusions: This study showed that the CFS-adjusted KTAS has a more useful prognostic value than the KTAS alone for predicting hospital outcomes in older patients.

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.

Frailty assessment tools in the emergency department: A geriatric emergency department guidelines 2.0 scoping review

Objective

Given the aging population and growing burden of frailty, we conducted this scoping review to describe the available literature regarding the use and impact of frailty assessment tools in the assessment and care of emergency department (ED) patients older than 60 years.

Methods

A search was made of the available literature using the Covidence system using various search terms. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed literature focusing on frailty screening tools used for a geriatric population (60+ years of age) presenting to EDs. An additional search of PubMed, EBSCO, and CINAHL for articles published in the last 5 years was conducted toward the end of the review process (January 2023) to search specifically for literature describing interventions for frailty, yielding additional articles for review. Exclusion criteria comprised articles focusing on an age category other than geriatric and care environments outside the emergency care setting.

Results

A total of 135 articles were screened for inclusion and 48 duplicates were removed. Of the 87 remaining articles, 20 were deemed irrelevant, leaving 67 articles for full-text review. Twenty-eight were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, leaving 39 full-text studies. Use of frailty screening tools were reported in the triage, care, and discharge decision-making phases of the ED care trajectory, with varying reports of usefulness for clinical decision-making.

Conclusion

The literature reports tools, scales, and instruments for identifying frailty in older patients at ED triage; multiple frailty scores or tools exist with varying levels of utilization. Interventions for frailty directed at the ED environment were scant. Further research is needed to determine the usefulness of frailty identification in the context of emergency care, the effects of care delivery interventions or educational initiatives for front-line medical professionals on patient-oriented outcomes, and to ensure these initiatives are acceptable for patients.

Assessing Physiologic Reserve and Frailty in the Older Emergency Department Patient: Should the Paradigm Change?

Older patients are more vulnerable to acute illness or injury because of reduced physiologic reserve associated with aging. Therefore, their assessment in the emergency department (ED) should include not only vital signs and their baseline values but also changes that reflect physiologic reserve, such as mobility, mental status, and frailty. Combining aggregated vitals sign scores and frailty might improve risk stratification in the ED. Implementing these changes in ED assessment may require the introduction of senior-friendly processes to ensure ED treatment is appropriate to the older patients' immediate discomfort, personal goals, and likely prognosis.

Developing a Geriatric Emergency Department: People, Processes, and Place

Older patients' ED visits rose 30% over 5 years and EDs are now examining geriatric emergency department (GED) models of care. The 3 Ps model focuses on the GED's People, Processes, and the Place to provide a framework for GED development. Key resources include the: GED Collaborative, GED Guidelines, and Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation process. Core to a GED's operation is its care processes including: (1) General approaches; (2) Screening for high-risk conditions; (3) Enhanced assessment; (4) Workflow alterations; and (5) Transitions. This article provides practical guidance to EDs seeking to enhance the ED experience of older people and improve the quality of their outcomes.

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).