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.

Functional dependency as a marker for positive SARC-F screen among older persons at the emergency department.

Background: Functional dependency may serve as a marker for positive SARC-F screen among older adults at the Emergency Department (ED). We compared functional dependency between SARC-F- (<4) and SARC-F+ (≥4) groups at the ED. Methods: A secondary analysis of cohorts from two quasi-experimental studies among patients aged ≥65 years old presenting to the ED of a 1700-bed tertiary hospital. We compared both groups for baseline characteristics using univariate analyses, and performed multiple linear regression to examine the association between Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and Lawton's instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) against SARC-F, and binary logistic regression to examine the associations between individual ADL domains and SARC-F+. We compared the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) to detect SARC-F+ for MBI, IADL, frailty, age, cognition and comorbidity. Results: SARC-F+ patients were older (86.4±7.6 years), predominantly female (71.5%) and frail (73.9%), more dependent on walking aids (77.2%), and had lower premorbid MBI[90.0(71.0-98.0)] and IADL[4.0(2.0-5.0)] (both p<.001). MBI (ß -0.07, 95%CI:-0.086 to -0.055] and IADL (ß -0.533,95%CI:-0.684 to -0.381) were significantly associated with SARC-F. Dependency in finances [Odds Ratio(OR):14.7,95%CI:3.57-60.2, p<.001], feeding (OR:12.4,95%CI:1.45-106, p=0.022), and stair-climbing (OR:10.49,95%CI:4.96-22.2, p<.001) were the top 3 functional items associated with SARC-F. MBI (AUC:0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.84) and IADL (AUC:0.78,95%CI:0.72-0.84) showed superior discrimination for SARC-F+ compared to other measures (AUC:0.58-0.70). Conclusion: Functional dependency is strongly associated with positive SARC-F screen among older adults at the ED. This highlights the need for increased vigilance, especially in the presence of dependency in relevant domains such as managing finances, feeding, and stair-climbing.

Effectiveness and usability of the system for assessment and intervention of frailty for community-dwelling pre-frail older adults: A pilot study.

Background: Effective multicomponent interventions in the community targeted at preventing frailty in at-risk older adults can promote healthy ageing. However, there is a lack of studies exploring the effectiveness of technology-enabled autonomous multi-domain community-based interventions for frailty. We developed a novel end-to-end System for Assessment and Intervention of Frailty (SAIF) with exercise, nutrition, and polypharmacy components. This pilot study aimed to explore SAIF's effectiveness in improving frailty status, physical performance and strength, and its usability in pre-frail older adults. Materials and methods: This is a single arm 8-week pilot study in 20 community-dwelling older adults who were pre-frail, defined using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) as CFS 3 + (CFS 3 and FRAIL positive) or CFS 4. For outcomes, we assessed frailty status using the modified Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) and CFS; physical performance using Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB); and Hand Grip Strength (HGS) at baseline and 8-week. User experience was explored using the System Usability Scale (SUS), interest-enjoyment subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and open-ended questions. We analyzed effectiveness using repeated-measures tests on pre-post scores, and usability using a convergent mixed-method approach via thematic analysis of open-ended responses and descriptive statistics of usability/interest-enjoyment scales. Results: Sixteen participants (71.8 ± 5.5 years) completed the 8-week study. There was a significant improvement in FFP score (-0.5, p < 0.05, effect size, r = 0.43), but not CFS (-1.0, p = 0.10, r = 0.29). Five (31.3%) improved in frailty status for both FFP and CFS. SPPB (+1.0, p < 0.05, r = 0.42) and HGS (+3.5, p < 0.05, r = 0.45) showed significant improvements. Three themes were identified: "Difficulty in module navigation" (barriers for SAIF interaction); "User engagement by gamification" (facilitators that encourage participation); and "Perceived benefits to physical health" (subjective improvements in physical well-being), which corroborated with SUS (68/100) and interest-enjoyment (3.9/5.0) scores. Taken together, user experience results cohere with the Senior Technology Acceptance and Adoption Model. Conclusion: Our pilot study provides preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of SAIF in improving frailty status, physical performance and strength of pre-frail older adults, and offers user experience insights to plan the follow-up large-scale randomized controlled trial.

Corrigendum: Effectiveness and usability of the system for assessment and intervention of frailty for community-dwelling pre-frail older adults: A pilot study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.955785.].

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.