Emergency department interventions for frailty (EDIFY): improving functional outcomes in older persons at the emergency department through a multicomponent frailty intervention.

OBJECTIVES: emergency department interventions for frailty (EDIFY) delivers frailty-centric interventions at the emergency department (ED). We evaluated the effectiveness of a multicomponent frailty intervention (MFI) in improving functional outcomes among older persons. DESIGN: a quasi-experimental study. SETTING: a 30-bed ED observation unit within a 1,700-bed acute tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: patients aged ≥65 years, categorised as Clinical Frailty Scale 4-6, and planned for discharge from the unit. METHODS: we compared patients receiving the MFI versus usual-care. Data on demographics, function, frailty, sarcopenia, comorbidities and medications were gathered. Our primary outcome was functional status-Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and Lawton's iADL. Secondary outcomes include hospitalisation, ED re-attendance, mortality, frailty, sarcopenia, polypharmacy and falls. Follow-up assessments were at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: we recruited 140 participants (mean age 79.7 ± 7.6 years; 47% frail and 73.6% completed the study). Baseline characteristics between groups were comparable (each n = 70). For the intervention group, MBI scores were significantly higher at 6 months (mean: 94.5 ± 11.2 versus 88.5 ± 19.5, P = 0.04), whereas Lawton's iADL scores experienced less decline (change-in-score: 0.0 ± 1.7 versus -1.1 ± 1.8, P = 0.001). Model-based analyses revealed greater odds of maintaining/improving MBI in the intervention group at 6 months [odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-6.03, P = 0.04] and 12 months (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.18-7.54, P = 0.02). This was similar for Lawton's iADL at 12 months (OR 4.01, 95% CI 1.70-9.48, P = 0.002). ED re-attendances (rate ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.90, P = 0.03) and progression to sarcopenia (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.94, P = 0.04) were also lower at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: the MFI delivered to older persons at the ED can possibly improve functional outcomes and reduce ED re-attendances while attenuating sarcopenia progression.

Case-Finding for Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Comparison of Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment with SARC-F and SARC-CalF.

BACKGROUND: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the "Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study" (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments. RESULTS: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433-0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445-0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671-0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591-0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145). CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

Frailty Screening and Detection of Geriatric Syndromes in Acute Inpatient Care: Impact on Hospital Length of Stay and 30-Day Readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is prevalent in acute care and is associated with negative outcomes. While a comprehensive geriatric assessment to identify geriatric syndromes is recommended after identifying frailty, more evidence is needed to support this approach in the inpatient setting. This study examined the association between frailty and geriatric syndromes and their impact on outcomes in acutely admitted older adults. METHODS: A total of 733 individuals aged ≥65 years admitted to the General Surgery Service of a tertiary hospital were assessed for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and for geriatric syndromes using routine nursing admission assessments, including cognitive impairment, falls, incontinence, malnutrition, and poor oral health. Multinomial logistic regression and Cox regression were used to evaluate the associations between frailty and geriatric syndromes and their concomitant impact on hospital length of stay (LOS) and 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: Greater frailty severity was associated with an increased likelihood of geriatric syndromes. Individuals categorized as CFS 4-6 and CFS 7-8 with concomitant geriatric syndromes had 29% and 35% increased risks of a longer LOS, respectively. CFS 4-6 was significantly associated with functional decline (relative risk ratio =1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.07) and 30-day readmission (hazare ratio=1.78; 95% CI, 1.04-3.04), whereas these associations were not significant for CFS 7-8. CONCLUSION: Geriatric syndromes in frail individuals can be identified from routine nursing assessments and represent a potential approach for targeted interventions following frailty identification. Tailored interventions may be necessary to achieve optimal outcomes at different stages of frailty. Further research is required to evaluate interventions for older adults with frailty in a wider hospital context.

Self-Reported Frailty Screening Tools: Comparing Construct Validity of the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire and FRAIL.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the construct validity of 2 self-reported frailty questionnaires, the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire (FPQ) and FRAIL, against the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty phenotype (CHS-FP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional data analysis of longitudinal prospective cohort study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We included data from 230 older adults (mean age: 67.2 ± 7.4 years) from the "Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study" (GeriLABS 2) recruited between December 2017 and March 2019. METHODS: We compared area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), agreement, correlation, and predictive validity against outcome measures [Short Physical Performance Battery, 5 times repeat chair stand (RCS-5), Frenchay activities index, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, life-space assessment, Social Functioning Scale 8 (SFS-8), EuroQol-5 dimensions (utility value)] using logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and vascular risk factors. We examined concurrent validity across robust versus prefrail/frail for inflammatory blood biomarkers [tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 and C-reactive protein (CRP)] and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry body composition [bone mineral density (BMD); appendicular lean mass index (ALMI), and fat mass index (FMI)]. RESULTS: Prevalence of prefrail/frail was 25.7%, 14.8%, and 48.3% for FPQ, FRAIL, and CHS-FP, respectively. Compared with FRAIL, FPQ had better diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.617 vs 0.531, P = .002; sensitivity = 37.8% vs 18.0%; specificity = 85.6% vs 88.2%) and agreement (AC1-Stat = 0.303 vs 0.197). FPQ showed good predictive validity [RCS-5: odds ratio (OR) 2.38; 95% CI: 1.17-4.86; International Physical Activity Questionnaire: OR 3.62; 95% CI:1.78-7.34; SFS-8: OR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.64-5.89 vs FRAIL: all P > .05]. Only FRAIL showed concurrent validity for CRP, compared with both FPQ and FRAIL for TNF-R1. FRAIL showed better concurrent validity for BMD, FMI, and possibly ALMI, unlike FPQ (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support complementary validity of FPQ and FRAIL in independent community-dwelling older adults. FPQ has increased case detection sensitivity with good predictive validity, whereas FRAIL demonstrates concurrent validity for inflammation and body composition. With better diagnostic performance and validity for blood biomarkers and clinical outcomes, FPQ has utility for early frailty detection in the community setting.

Emergency Department Interventions for Frailty (EDIFY): Front-Door Geriatric Care Can Reduce Acute Admissions.

OBJECTIVES: The EDIFY program was developed to deliver early geriatric specialist interventions at the emergency department (ED) to reduce the number of acute admissions by identifying patients for safe discharge or transfer to low-acuity care settings. We evaluated the effectiveness of EDIFY in reducing potentially avoidable acute admissions. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study. SETTING: ED of a 1700-bed tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: ED patients aged ≥85 years. MEASUREMENTS: We compared EDIFY interventions versus standard care. Patients with plans for acute admission were screened and recruited. Data on demographics, premorbid function, frailty status, comorbidities, and acute illness severity were gathered. We examined the primary outcome of "successful acute admission avoidance" among the intervention group, which was defined as no ED attendance within 72 hours of discharge from ED, no transfer to an acute ward from subacute-care units (SCU) within 72-hours, or no transfer to an acute ward from the short-stay unit (SSU). Secondary outcomes were rehospitalization, ED re-attendance, institutionalization, functional decline, mortality, and frailty transitions at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: We recruited 100 participants (mean age 90.0 ± 4.1 years, 66.0% women). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between intervention (n = 43) and nonintervention (n = 57) groups. Thirty-five (81.4%) participants in the intervention group successfully avoided an acute admission (20.9% home, 23.3% SCU, and 44.2% SSU). All participants in the nonintervention group were hospitalized. There were no differences in rehospitalization, ED re-attendance, institutionalization and mortality over the study period. Additionally, we observed a higher rate of progression to a poorer frailty category at all time points among the nonintervention group (1, 3, and 6 months: all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Results from our single-center study suggest that early geriatric specialist interventions at the ED can reduce potentially avoidable acute admissions without escalating the risk of rehospitalization, ED re-attendance, or mortality, and with possible benefit in attenuating frailty progression.

Validating a Standardised Approach in Administration of the Clinical Frailty Scale in Hospitalised Older Adults.

INTRODUCTION: We developed a Clinical Frailty Scale algorithm (CFS-A) to minimise inter-rater variability and to facilitate wider application across clinical settings. We compared the agreement, diagnostic performance and predictive utility of CFS-A against standard CFS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data of 210 hospitalised older adults (mean age, 89.4 years). Two independent raters assessed frailty using CFS-A. Agreement between CFS-A raters and with previously completed CFS was determined using Cohen's Kappa. Area under receiver operator characteristic curves (AUC) for both measures were compared against the Frailty Index (FI). Independent associations between these measures and adverse outcomes were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Frailty prevalence were 81% in CFS and 96% in CFS-A. Inter-rater agreement between CFS-A raters was excellent (kappa 0.90, P <0.001) and there was moderate agreement between CFS-A and standard CFS (kappa 0.42, P <0.001). We found no difference in AUC against FI between CFS (0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95) and CFS-A (0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P <0.001). Both CFS (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.28-5.67; P <0.001) and CFS-A (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 2.41-7.69; P <0.001) were good predictors of mortality at 12 months. Similarly, CFS (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.81-3.69; P <0.001) and CFS-A (OR, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.13-6.02; P <0.001) were also good predictors of institutionalisation and/or mortality after adjusting for age, sex and illness severity. CONCLUSION: Our study corroborated the results on inter-rater reliability, diagnostic performance and predictive validity of CFS-A which has the potential for consistent and efficient administration of CFS in acute care settings.