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

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.

Do-Not-ResuscitateDecision-Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Teaching Hospital: Lessons Learned for the Future

Method

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between February 2021 and April 2021 for all doctors and doctors in training, working in the Antwerp University Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

127 doctors participated in this study. The familiarity with the different scores used in the triage during the COVID-10 pandemic was 51% for the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and 20% for the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Participants indicated that their DNR decision is based on various aspects such as clinical assessment, comorbidities, patient's wishes, age, prognosis, and functional state.

Conclusion

The familiarity with the different scores used during triage assessments is low. The total clinical picture of the patient is needed to make a considered decision, and this total picture of the patient seems to be well encompassed by frailty measurement (CFS). Although many participants indicated that the different scores do not offer much added value compared to their clinical assessment, it can help guide DNR decisions, especially for doctors in training.

Cross-cultural adaption and inter-rater reliability of the Swedish version of the updated clinical frailty scale 2.0

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, there is a large and growing group of older adults. Frailty is known as an important discriminatory factor for poor outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has become a frequently used frailty instrument in different clinical settings and health care sectors, and it has shown good predictive validity. The aims of this study were to describe and validate the translation and cultural adaptation of the CFS into Swedish (CFS-SWE), and to test the inter-rater reliability (IRR) for registered nurses using the CFS-SWE.

METHODS

An observational study design was employed. The ISPOR principles were used for the translation, linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of the scale. To test the IRR, 12 participants were asked to rate 10 clinical case vignettes using the CFS-SWE. The IRR was assessed using intraclass correlation and Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient test.

RESULTS

The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated and culturally adapted into Swedish and is presented in its final form. The IRR for all raters, measured by an intraclass correlation test, resulted in an absolute agreement value among the raters of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.929-0.991) and a consistency value of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.953-0.994), which indicates excellent reliability. Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient for all raters was 0.969 (95% CI: 0.917-0.988), indicating near-perfect agreement. The sensitivity of the reliability was examined by separately testing the IRR of the group of specialised registered nurses and non-specialised registered nurses respectively, with consistent and similar results.

CONCLUSION

The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated, linguistically validated and culturally adapted into Swedish following a well-established standard technique. The IRR was excellent, judged by two established, separately used, reliability tests. The reliability test results did not differ between non-specialised and specialised registered nurses. However, the use of case vignettes might reduce the generalisability of the reliability findings to real-life settings. The CFS has the potential to be a common reference tool, especially when older adults are treated and rehabilitated in different care sectors.