Does CGA Improve Health Outcomes in the Community? An Umbrella Review.

OBJECTIVES: To perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses (MAs) examining the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) delivered within community settings to general populations of community-dwelling older people against various health outcomes. DESIGN: Umbrella review of MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews with MAs examining associations between CGA conducted within the community and any health outcome, where participants were community-dwelling older people with a minimum mean age of 60 years or where at least 50% of study participants were aged ≥60 years. Studies focusing on residential care, hospitals, post-hospital care, outpatient clinics, emergency department, or patients with specific conditions were excluded. METHODS: We examined CGA effectiveness against 12 outcomes: not living at home, nursing home admission, activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs), physical function, falls, self-reported health status, quality of life, frailty, mental health, hospital admission, and mortality, searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase databases from January 1, 1999, to August 10, 2022. AMSTAR-2 was used to assess the quality of included systematic reviews, including risk of bias. RESULTS: We identified 10 MAs. Only not living at home (combined mortality and nursing home admission) demonstrated concordance between effect direction, significance, and magnitude. Significant effects were more typically observed in earlier rather than later studies. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Given the widespread adoption of CGA as a component of usual care within geriatric medicine, the lack of strong evidence demonstrating the protective effects of CGA may be indicative of a cohort effect. If so, future RCTs examining CGA effectiveness are unlikely to demonstrate significant findings. Future studies of CGA in the community should focus on implementation and adherence to key components. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study protocol registered in PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169680.

The Use of Digital Technologies in the Inpatient Setting to Promote Communication During the Early Stage of an Infectious Disease Outbreak: A Scoping Review.

Background: Infectious disease outbreaks disrupt inpatient clinical care and have an impact on staff and patients' ability to communicate with each other and with the wider community. Digital technology may offer opportunities for communication in the inpatient setting during infectious disease outbreaks. Aim: This scoping review aimed to investigate the use of digital technology in the inpatient setting to promote communication in the early stages of an infectious disease outbreak. Methods: There were three aspects to this scoping review: (1) a database search of Ovid MEDLINE (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM) and IEEE Xplore (IEEE) exploring peer-reviewed articles, (2) a gray literature search, and (3) a media search. Results: Results focused on the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-eight peer-reviewed articles were extracted from the database search. There were three main areas of investigation: study characteristics, technology features, and benefits and barriers. Forty-four websites were searched for the gray literature search focusing on policy and guidance. Eighteen media articles were retrieved focusing on patients' use of technology and community involvement. Conclusion: Results demonstrate the diverse use of digital technology in the inpatient setting to facilitate communication during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the articles provide limited data to allow readers to fully understand and reproduce described actions. Furthermore, there was limited guidance to support clinicians to communicate using digital technology to create trusting therapeutic relationships. Areas for future development include standard reporting process for technology hardware, software, and content; and structured reporting and evaluation of the implementation of technologies.

The Pictorial Fit-Frail Scale-Malay version (PFFS-M): reliability and validity testing in Malaysian primary care.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the reliability and convergent validity of the PFFS-Malay version (PFFS-M) among patients (with varying educational levels), caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs). PFFS-M cutoffs for frailty severity were developed. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study from 4 primary care clinics where 240 patients aged >60 years and their caregivers were enrolled. Patients were assigned to a nurse or a health care assistant (HCA) for 2 separate PFFS-M assessments administered by HCPs of the same profession, as well as by a doctor during the first visit (inter-rater reliability). Patients were also administered the Self-Assessed Report of Personal Capacity & Healthy Ageing (SEARCH) tool, a 40-item frailty index, by a research officer. The correlation between patients' PFFS-M scores and SEARCH tool scores determined convergent validity. Patients returned 1 week later for PFFS-M reassessment by the same HCPs (test-retest reliability). Caregivers completed the PFFS-M for the patient at both clinic visits. Classification cut-points for the PFFS-M were derived against frailty categories defined through the SEARCH tool. RESULTS: The inter-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93)] and test-retest (ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.95]) reliability between all raters was excellent, including by patients' education levels. The convergent validity was moderate (r = 0.637, p < 0.001), including for varying educational background. PFFS-M categories were identified as: 0-3, no frailty; 4-5, at risk of frailty; 6-8, mild frailty; 9-12, moderate frailty; and >13, severe frailty. CONCLUSION: PFFS-M is a reliable and valid tool with frailty severity scores now established for use of this tool in primary care clinics.

Frailty change based on minimally important difference in nursing home residents: FIRST cohort study findings.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common among residential aged care services (RACS) residents; however, little is known about how frailty changes over time in this population. This study aimed to estimate minimally important difference (MID) in frailty to then describe: frailty change over 12 months; and factors associated with worsening frailty. METHODS: Prospective cohort study across 12 RACS sites of a single aged care organisation in South Australia (n = 548 residents, mean age 87.7 ± 7.2 years, 72.6% female). Frailty was measured using a frailty index (FI) with 12 months between baseline and follow-up. MID was calculated cross-sectionally (anchor-based using self-reported health, and ½SD for distribution-based). RESULTS: Between-person MID for the FI was identified as 0.037 (anchor-based) and 0.063 (distribution-based). Using the conservative value of 0.063 as the basis for change, 32.3% (n = 177) of residents remained stable, 13.7% (n = 75) improved, 33.0% (n = 181) worsened and 21.0% (n = 115) died over 12 months. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of the dichotomous outcome of worsening and death at 12 months were: being malnourished (odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23, 3.75), at risk of malnutrition (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.34, 2.91) and diabetes (OR = 1.61, 95%CI = 1.06, 2.42) compared to those who remained stable or improved. CONCLUSIONS: A 6.3% change in frailty for RACS residents is a conservative MID. Frailty is dynamic in RACS residents, and stability or improvement was possible even for the most-frail. Treatments such as nutritional interventions, exercise and diabetes management are likely to benefit frailty.

Sarcopenia risk in nursing home residents using SARC-F: FIRST study findings.

AIM: Sarcopenia is a common disorder of loss of muscle mass and function among older adults; however, few studies have examined screening instruments for sarcopenia risk in residential aged care services (RACS). The aims of this study were to measure sarcopenia risk in RACS residents using the SARC-F, describe factors associated with sarcopenia risk and examine the predictive validity of the SARC-F for 12-month mortality. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study carried out in South Australian RACS across 12 sites. In total, 541 residents (mean age 87.7 [7.3] years, 72.6% women) were included in the study. Sarcopenia risk was measured using a modified SARC-F (≥4 point cut point). RESULTS: We identified 89.5% (n = 484) of residents at risk of sarcopenia. Significant (P > 0.05) predictors of sarcopenia risk in multivariable analysis included the presence of diabetes (relative risk [RR] = 1.08), classification as most-frail (RR = 1.06) and smaller Nursing Home Life Space Diameter (NHLSD) score (RR = 0.99). Mortality was observed in 20.9% (n = 113) of residents over a 12-month follow-up. Classification as at-risk of sarcopenia was a significant predictor of 12-month mortality; however, it had a poor area under the receiver operator curve (0.56), and a low positive predictive value (23.1%). The best performing cut-point of ≥7 also had poor discriminative ability (under the receiver operator curve = 0.66, positive predictive value = 30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia risk is extremely common among RACS residents and its presence is a significant contributor to 12-month mortality. Low discriminative ability for the SARC-F was noted across multiple cut-off scores for predicting mortality at 12 months. Diabetes management and promoting physical activity and nutrition among RACS residents are likely to influence sarcopenia risk positively. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; 22: 206-212.

Frailty and sarcopenia in combination are more predictive of mortality than either condition alone.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and sarcopenia are age-related conditions with shared features and are both associated with adverse health outcomes. Relatively little is known about outcomes of these conditions in combination. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive ability of combined frailty and sarcopenia classification on mortality. METHODS: Frailty was measured in 716 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years from the North West Adelaide Health Study (mean age 74.1(6.1) years, 55.5 % female) using the frailty phenotype (FP) and sarcopenia using the revised consensus definition from the European Working Group on Sarcopenia. Participants were classified as: neither frail nor sarcopenic, frail-only, sarcopenic-only, or both frail and sarcopenic. All participants had a minimum of 10 years of mortality follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 2.8 % of participants as both frail and sarcopenic, 15.5 % as frail-only, and 3.5 % as sarcopenic-only. Classification as both frail and sarcopenic, in a multivariable model, resulted in significantly elevated mortality risk (HR = 3.52, p < .001), which was over three times that of those neither frail nor sarcopenic. Frail-only was also a significant mortality predictor (HR = 2.03, p = .001), while classification as sarcopenic-only was not a significant predictor of mortality (HR = 1.65, p = .141). There was no significant difference in severity of frailty (mean number of characteristics) or grip strength between frail-only and those with both conditions when stratified by sex. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals identified as frail would benefit from screening and assessment for sarcopenia, and vice versa for those identified as sarcopenic, as the mortality risk for individuals with these conditions in combination is nearly double that of each separately.

Frailty state utility and minimally important difference: findings from the North West Adelaide Health Study.

BACKGROUND: frailty is a dynamic condition for which a range of interventions are available. Health state utilities are values that represent the strength of an individual's preference for specific health states, and are used in economic evaluation. This is a topic yet to be examined in detail for frailty. Likewise, little has been reported on minimally important difference (MID), the extent of change in frailty status that individuals consider to be important. OBJECTIVES: to examine the relationship between frailty status, for both the frailty phenotype (FP) and frailty index (FI), and utility (preference-based health state), and to determine a MID for both frailty measures. DESIGN AND SETTING: population-based cohort of community-dwelling Australians. PARTICIPANT: in total, 874 adults aged ≥65 years (54% female), mean age 74.4 (6.2) years. MEASUREMENTS: frailty was measured using the FP and FI. Utilities were calculated using the short-form 6D health survey, with Australian and UK weighting applied. MID was calculated cross-sectionally. RESULTS: for both the FP and FI, frailty was significantly statistically associated (P < 0.001) with lower utility in an adjusted analysis using both Australian and UK weighting. Between-person MID for the FP was identified as 0.59 [standard deviation (SD) 0.31] (anchor-based) and 0.59 (distribution-based), whereas for the FI, MID was 0.11 (SD 0.05) (anchor-based) and 0.07 (distribution-based). CONCLUSIONS: frailty is significantly associated with lower preference-based health state utility. Frailty MID can be used to inform design of clinical trials and economic evaluations, as well as providing useful clinical information on frailty differences that patients consider important.

FRAIL scale: Predictive validity and diagnostic test accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictive validity of the FRAIL scale for mortality, and diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) against the frailty phenotype (FP). MEASUREMENT: Frailty was measured in 846 community-dwelling adults (mean age 74.3 [SD 6.3] years, 54.8% female) using a modified FRAIL scale and modified FP. Mortality was matched to death records. RESULTS: The FRAIL scale demonstrated significant predictive validity for mortality up to 10 years (Frail adjHR: 2.60, P < .001). DTA findings were acceptable for specificity (86.8%) and Youden index (0.50), but not sensitivity (63.6%), or area under the receiver operator curve (auROC) (0.75). DTA estimates were more acceptable when a cut-point of ≥2 characteristics was used rather than ≥3 in the primary DTA analysis. CONCLUSION: The FRAIL scale is a valid predictor of mortality. DTA estimates depend on FRAIL scale cut-point used. This instrument is a potentially useful frailty screening tool.

Diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported screening instruments in identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: A systematic review.

Against a backdrop of aging populations worldwide, it has become increasingly important to identify frailty screening instruments suitable for community settings. Self-reported and/or administered instruments might offer significant simplicity and efficiency advantages over clinician-administered instruments, but their comparative diagnostic test accuracy has yet to be systematically examined. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported and/or self-administered frailty screening instruments against two widely accepted frailty reference standards (the frailty phenotype and the Frailty Index) within community-dwelling older adult populations. We carried out a systematic search of the Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations, Open Grey and GreyLit databases up to April 2017 (with an updated search carried out over May-July 2018) to identify studies reporting comparison of self-reported and/or self-administered frailty screening instruments against an appropriate reference standard, with a minimum sensitivity threshold of 80% and specificity threshold of 60%. We identified 24 studies that met our selection criteria. Four self-reported screening instruments across three studies met minimum sensitivity and specificity thresholds. However, in most cases, study design considerations limited the reliability and generalizability of the results. Additionally, meta-analysis was not carried out, because no more than three studies were available for any of the unique combinations of index tests and reference standards. Although the present study has shown that a number of self-reported frailty screening instruments reported sensitivity and specificity within a desirable range for community application, additional diagnostic test accuracy studies are required. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 14-24.

Recurrent Measurement of Frailty Is Important for Mortality Prediction: Findings from the North West Adelaide Health Study.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty places individuals at greater risk of adverse health outcomes. However, it is a dynamic condition and may not always lead to decline. Our objective was to determine the relationship between frailty status (at baseline and follow-up) and mortality using both the frailty phenotype (FP) and frailty index (FI). DESIGN: Population-based cohort. SETTING: Community-dwelling older adults. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 909 individuals aged 65 years or older (55% female), mean age 74.4 (SD 6.2) years, had frailty measurement at baseline. Overall, 549 participants had frailty measurement at two time points. MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured using the FP and FI, with a mean 4.5 years between baseline and follow-up. Mortality was matched to official death records with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS: For both measures, baseline frailty was a significant predictor of mortality up to 10 years, with initially good predictive ability (area under the curve [AUC] = .8-.9) decreasing over time. Repeated measurement at follow-up resulted in good prediction compared with lower (AUC = .6-.7) discrimination of equivalent baseline frailty status. In a multivariable model, frailty measurement at follow-up was a stronger predictor of mortality compared with baseline. Frailty change for the Continuous FI was a significant predictor of decreased or increased mortality risk based on corresponding improvement or worsening of score (hazard ratio = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.07; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty measurement is a good predictor of mortality up to 10 years; however, recency of frailty measurement is important for improved prediction. A regular review of frailty status is required in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2311-2317, 2019.

Frailty state transitions and associated factors in South Australian older adults.

AIM: Frailty is a state of decreased physiological reserve and vulnerability to stressors. Understanding the characteristics of those most at risk of worsening, or likely to improve their frailty status, are key elements in addressing this condition. The present study measured frailty state transitions and factors associated with improvement or worsening frailty status in the North West Adelaide Health Study. METHODS: Frailty was measured using the frailty phenotype (FP) and a 34-item frailty index (FI) for 696 community-dwelling participants aged ≥65 years, with repeated measures at 4.5-year follow up. RESULTS: Improvement in frailty state was common for both tools (FP 15.5%; FI 7.9%). The majority remained stable (FP 44.4%; FI 52.6%), and many transitioned to a worse level of frailty (FP 40.1%; FI 39.5%). For both measures, multimorbidity was associated with worsening frailty among non-frail participants. Among pre-frail participants, normal waist circumference was associated with improvement, whereas older age was associated with worsening of frailty status. Among frail individuals, younger age was associated with improvement, and male sex and older age were associated with worsening frailty status. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is a dynamic process where improvement is possible. Multimorbidity, obesity, age and sex were associated with frailty transitions for both tools. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2018; 18: 1549-1555.

Frailty prevalence in Australia: Findings from four pooled Australian cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine frailty prevalence in Australian older adults. METHODS: Frailty was measured using a modified Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) in a combined cohort of 8804 Australian adults aged ≥65 years (female 86%, median age 80 (79-82) years) from the Dynamic Analyses to Optimise Ageing Project and the North West Adelaide Health Study. RESULTS: Using the FFP, 21% of participants were frail while a further 48% were prefrail. Chi-squared testing of frailty among four age groups (65-69, 70-74, 75-79 and 80-84 years) for sex, and marital status revealed that frailty was significantly higher for women (approximately double that of men), increased significantly with advancing age for both sexes, and was significantly higher for women who were widowed, divorced or never married. CONCLUSION: If frailty could be prevented or reversed, it would have an impact on a larger number of older people.

Frailty prevalence and factors associated with the Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index: Findings from the North West Adelaide Health Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of frailty and associated factors in the North West Adelaide Health Study (2004-2006) using the Frailty Phenotype (FP) and Frailty Index (FI). METHODS: Frailty was measured in 909 community-dwelling participants aged ≥65 years using the FP and FI. RESULTS: The FP classified 18% of participants as frail and the FI 48%. The measures were strongly correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.001) and had a kappa agreement of 0.38 for frailty classification, with 37% of participants classified as non-frail by the FP being classified as frail by the FI. Being older, a current smoker, and having multimorbidity and polypharmacy were associated with higher frailty levels by both tools. Female, low income, obesity and living alone were associated with the FI. CONCLUSION: Frailty prevalence was higher when assessed using the FI. Socioeconomic factors and other health determinants contribute to higher frailty levels.

Diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported frailty screening instruments in identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of frailty and pre-frailty: a systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The question of this systematic review is: What is the diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported frailty screening instruments among community-dwelling older people against any of the following reference standard tests: the frailty phenotype, frailty index and comprehensive geriatric assessment?