Frailty is associated with 30-day mortality: a multicentre study of Swedish emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Older patients living with frailty have an increased risk for adverse events. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a 9-point frailty assessment instrument that has shown promise to identify frail emergency department (ED) patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between CFS scores and 30-day mortality in an ED setting when assessments are made by regular ED staff. METHOD: This was a prospective multicentre observational study carried out between May and November 2021 at three EDs in Sweden, where frailty via CFS is routinely assessed by ED staff. All patients ≥65 years of age were eligible for inclusion. Mortality at 7, 30 and 90 days, admission rate, ED and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared between patients living with frailty (CFS≥5) and robust patients. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1840 ED visits of patients aged ≥65 years with CFS assessments done during the study period were analysed, of which 606 (32.9%) were patients living with frailty. Mortality after the index visit was higher in patients living with frailty at 7 days (2.6% vs 0.2%), 30 days (7.9% vs 0.9%) and 90 days (15.5% vs 2.4%). Adjusted ORs for mortality for those with frailty compared with more robust patients were 9.9 (95% CI 2.1 to 46.5) for 7-day, 6.0 (95% CI 3.0 to 12.2) for 30-day and 5.7 (95% CI 3.6 to 9.1) 90-day mortality. Patients living with frailty had higher admission rates, 58% versus 36%, a difference of 22% (95% CI 17% to 26%), longer ED LOS, 5 hours:08 min versus 4 hours:36 min, a difference of 31 min (95% CI 14 to 50), and longer in-hospital LOS, 4.8 days versus 2.7 days, a difference of 2.2 days (95% CI 1.2 to 3.0). CONCLUSION: Patients living with frailty, had significantly higher mortality and admission rates as well as longer ED and in-hospital LOS compared with robust patients. The results confirm the capability of the CFS to risk stratify short-term mortality in older ED patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04877028.

Is the clinical frailty scale feasible to use in an emergency department setting? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool used to identify frailty in older patients visiting the emergency department (ED). However, the current understanding of how it is used and accepted in ED clinical practice is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of CFS in an ED setting. METHODS: This was a prospective, mixed methods study conducted in three Swedish EDs where CFS had recently been introduced. We examined the completion rate of CFS assessments in relation to patient- and organisational factors. A survey on staff experience of using CFS was also conducted. All quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while free text comments underwent a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4235 visits were analysed, and CFS assessments were performed in 47%. The completion rate exceeded 50% for patients over the age of 80. Patients with low triage priority were assessed to a low degree (24%). There was a diurnal variation with the highest completion rates seen for arrivals between 6 and 12 a.m. (58%). The survey response rate was 48%. The respondents rated the perceived relevance and the ease of use of the CFS with a median of 5 (IQR 2) on a scale with 7 being the highest. High workload, forgetfulness and critical illness were ranked as the top three barriers to assessment. The qualitative analysis showed that CFS assessments benefit from a clear routine and a sense of apparent relevance to emergency care. CONCLUSION: Most emergency staff perceived CFS as relevant and easy to use, yet far from all older ED patients were assessed. The most common barrier to assessment was high workload. Measures to facilitate use may include clarifying the purpose of the assessment with explicit follow-up actions, as well as formulating a clear routine for the assessment. REGISTRATION: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 2021-06-18 (identifier: NCT04931472).

Inter-rater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale by staff members in a Swedish emergency department setting.

INTRODUCTION: As frailty among the elderly is receiving increasing attention in emergency departments (EDs) around the world, the use of frailty assessment tools is growing. An often used such tool is the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), whose inter-rater reliability has been sparingly investigated in ED settings. No inter-rater reliability study regarding CFS has previously been performed within the Scandinavian ED context. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the CFS in a Swedish ED setting. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study conducted at three Swedish EDs. Patients ≥65 years were independently assessed with CFS by their responsible physician, registered nurse, and assistant nurse. Demographic information for each assessor was collected, along with frailty status (frail/not frail) on the basis of clinical judgment. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), whereas agreement of frailty assessed by CFS (dichotomized between frail/not frail, cutoff at ≥5 points) versus solely by clinical judgment was calculated by using cross-tabulation. RESULTS: One-hundred patients were included. We found inter-rater reliability to be moderate to good (ICC 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.84), regardless of whether the care team included an emergency physician (ICC 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.83) or an intern/resident from another specialty (ICC 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.89). The agreement of clinically judged frailty compared to frailty according to CFS was 84%. In the opposing cases, staff tended to assess patients as frail to a higher extent using clinical judgment than by applying CFS on the same patient. CONCLUSIONS: The CFS appears to have a moderate to good inter-rater reliability when used in a clinical ED setting. When guiding clinical decisions, we advise that the CFS score should be discussed within the team. Further research needs to be performed on the accuracy of clinical judgment to identify frailty in ED patients.

Research priority setting in emergency care: A scoping review.

Objective: Priority areas for emergency care research are emerging and becoming ever more important. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) provide a comprehensive overview of published emergency care priority-setting studies by collating and comparing priority-setting methodology and (2) describe the resulting research priorities identified. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework was used. Inclusion criteria were peer-review articles available in English, published between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2019 and used 2 or more search terms. Five databases (Scopus, AustHealth, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE) were searched. REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence of included articles. Results: Forty-five studies were included. Fourteen themes for emergency care research were considered within 3 overarching research domains: emergency populations (pediatrics, geriatrics), emergency care workforce and processes (nursing, shared decision making, general workforce, and process), and emergency care clinical areas (imaging, falls, pain management, trauma care, substance misuse, infectious diseases, mental health, cardiology, general clinical care). Variation in the reporting of research priority areas was evident. Priority areas to drive the global agenda for emergency care research are limited given the country and professional group-specific context of existing studies. Conclusion: This comprehensive summary of generated research priorities across emergency care provides insight into current and future research agendas. With the nature of emergency care being inherently broad, future priorities may warrant population (eg, children, geriatrics) or subspecialty (eg, trauma, toxicology, mental health) focus and be derived using a rigorous framework and patient engagement.