Predictive value and interrater reliability of mental status and mobility assessment in the emergency department.

AIM: To investigate the predictive value of both mental status, assessed with the AVPUC (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive, and new Confusion) scale, and mobility assessments, and their interrater reliability (IRR) between triage clinicians and a research team. METHOD: Prospective study of consecutive patients who presented to an ED. Mental status and mobility were assessed by triage clinicians and by a dedicated research team. RESULTS: 4,191 patients were included. After adjustment for age and sex, patients with altered mental status have an odds ratio of 6.55 [4.09-10.24] to be admitted in the ICU and an odds ratio of 21.16 [12.06-37.01] to die within 30 days; patients with impaired mobility have an odds ratio of 7.08 [4.60-11.12] to be admitted in the ICU and an odds ratio of 12.87 [5.93-32.30] to die within 30 days. The kappa coefficient between triage clinicians and the research team for mental status assessment was 0.75, and 0.80 for mobility. CONCLUSION: Assessment of mental status by the AVPUC scale, and mobility by a simple dichotomous scale are suitable for ED triage. Both altered mental status and impaired mobility are associated with adverse outcomes. Mental status and mobility assessment have good interrater reliability.

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 (Ï° = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), similarly to that between TC and geriED-TN (Ï° = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) and between the ST and geriED-TN (Ï° = 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.