Reproducibility and responsiveness of the Frailty Index and Frailty Phenotype in older hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest for interventions aiming at preventing frailty progression or even to reverse frailty in older people, yet it is still unclear which frailty instrument is most appropriate for measuring change scores over time to determine the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine reproducibility and responsiveness properties of the Frailty Index (FI) and Frailty Phenotype (FP) in acutely hospitalized medical patients aged 70 years and older. METHODS: Reproducibility was assessed by Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC); Responsiveness was assessed by the standardized response mean (SRM), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: At baseline, 243 patients were included with a median age of 76 years (range 70-98). The analytic samples included 192 and 187 patients in the three and twelve months follow-up analyses, respectively. ICC of the FI were 0.85 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.76; 0.91) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77; 0.90), and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.49; 0.77) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65; 0.84) for the FP. SEM ranged from 5 to 13 %; SDC from 13 to 37 %. SRMs were good in patients with unchanged frailty status (< 0.50), and doubtful to good for deteriorated and improved patients (0.43-1.00). AUC's over three months were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69; 0.86) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62; 0.79) for the FI, and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.58; 0.77) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.55; 0.74) for the FP. Over twelve months, AUCs were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69; 0.87) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73; 0.90) for the FI, and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69; 0.87) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67; 0.84) for the FP. CONCLUSIONS: The Frailty Index showed better reproducibility and responsiveness properties compared to the Frailty Phenotype among acutely hospitalized older patients.

Value of the Safety Management System (VMS) frailty instrument as a frailty screener in care for older hospital patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dutch hospitals are required to screen older patients for the risk of developing functional decline using the Safety Management System (VMS) which assesses four domains associated with functional decline; fall risk, risk of delirium, malnutrition, and physical impairment. PURPOSE: The aim is twofold, first to compare the VMS frailty instrument as a frailty screener with existing frailty instruments and second to provide an overview of the available evidence. METHODS: We performed a literature search to identify studies that used the VMS instrument as frailty screener to asses frailty or to predict adverse health outcomes in older hospitalized patients. Pubmed, Cinahl, and Embase were searched from January 1st 2008 to December 11th 2023. RESULTS: Our search yielded 603 articles, of which 17 studies with heterogenous populations and settings were included. Using the VMS, frailty was scored in six different ways. The agreement between VMS and other frailty instruments ranged from 57 to 87%. The highest sensitivity and specificity of VMS for frailty were 90% and 67%, respectively. The association of the VMS with outcomes was studied in 14 studies, VMS was predictive for complications, delirium, falls, length of stay, and adverse events. Conflicting results were found for hospital (re)admission, complications, change in living situation, functional decline, and mortality. CONCLUSION: The VMS frailty instrument were studied as a frailty screening instrument in various populations and settings. The value of the VMS instrument as a frailty screener looks promising. Our results suggest that the scoring method of the VMS could be adapted to specific requirements of settings or populations.

The predictive value of the 'VMS frail older patients' for adverse outcomes in geriatric inpatients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Dutch Safety Management system (VMS) screening for frail older patients is used as a predictor for adverse outcomes. We aimed to determine the predictive value of the VMS for adverse outcomes in geriatric inpatients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study in geriatric inpatients. Outcomes were institutionalization, readmission and mortality (3- and 12-months). Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictive value of the number of positive VMS domains, a VMS score ≥1, and individual domains for adverse outcomes. RESULTS: We included 477 patients. Median age was 85 years (54-99) and 37% were male. Eighty-seven % scored positive on delirium risk, 57% on fall risk, 39% on malnutrition and 64% on physical impairment. One-hundred-thirty-five patients (28%) were institutionalized, 78 patients (16%) were readmitted and mortality rate was 127(27%) at 3 months and 184 (39%) at one year. The VMS was not predictive for readmission (OR 1.6; 95%-CI 0.2-13.7) and mortality, (OR 0.6 95%-CI 0.2-2.0 and OR 1.1; 95%-CI 0.3-3.7). For institutionalization, delirium risk (OR 2.2; 95%-CI 1.1-4.4), physical impairment (OR 1.8; 95%-CI 1.1-2.9) and a positive score on all four domains were predictive (OR 12.1 95%-CI-1.4-101.7). Malnutrition was predictive for readmission (OR 1.74; 95%-CI 1.05-2.91) and three-month mortality (OR 1.69; 95%-CI 1.11-2.57), delirium risk for one -year mortality (OR 2.0; 95%-CI 1.0-4.0) . CONCLUSIONS: Almost all geriatric inpatients scored positive on at least one domain of the VMS. The number of positive VMS domains had some predictive value for institutionalization. Individual domains were able to predict adverse outcomes.

[Assessment instruments in frail older patients; a call for more standardisation]. / Meetinstrumenten bij kwetsbare ouderen: een pleidooi voor meer standaardisatie.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and background of the use of assessment instruments for the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment by clinical geriatricians and internists in geriatric medicine; the secondary aim was to make an inventory of the willingness to standardise the assessment instruments used. DESIGN: A descriptive questionnaire study. METHOD: In December 2016, we sent out a digital questionnaire (Survey Monkey) to all the hospitals in the Netherlands. Respondents were asked which instruments they used for specific domains of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, what their choice of instruments was based on, if these instruments had added value, and if they were prepared to change the instruments they used. RESULTS: We received 66 responses (response: 82%). The most frequently-used instruments were: Mini Mental State Examination in combination with the clock drawing test (21%), Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (45%), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living-6 (75%), Lawton and Brody (48%), Mini Nutritional Assessment(-short form) (outpatient; 56%) and Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (inpatient: 36%), Experienced Burden Informal Care (46%), Charlson Comorbidity Index (35%), Timed Up and Go (76%), and the Safety Management System (VMS) fall risk question (21%). The most frequently used instruments were used in a large number of hospitals (35-97%).The variation of tests was the greatest in the domains of cognition, malnutrition, and mobility/physical functioning. Many respondents saw the added value of a consensus set of instruments (median: 70%; interquartile range (IQR): 50-86), and most were willing to change the instruments they use (median: 80%; IQR: 65-90). CONCLUSION: This inventory shows that the instruments used in most domains were reasonably uniform. Taking the willingness to change into account, a national set of basis instruments seems to be an achievable aim.

[Predictive value of the VMS theme 'Frail elderly': delirium, falling and mortality in elderly hospital patients]. / Voorspellende waarde VMS-thema 'Kwetsbare ouderen': delirium, valincidenten en overlijden bij oudere ziekenhuispatiënten.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of safety management system (VMS) screening questions for falling, delirium, and mortality, as punt down in the VMS theme 'Frail elderly'. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHOD: We selected all patients ≥ 70 years who were admitted to non-ICU wards at the Deventer Hospital, the Netherlands, for at least 24 hours between 28 March 2011 and 10 June 2011. On admission, patients were screened with the VMS instrument by a researcher. Delirium and falls were recorded during hospitalisation. Six months after hospitalisation, data on mortality were collected. RESULTS: We included 688 patients with a median age of 78.7 (range: 70.0-97.1); 50.7% was male. The sensitivity of the screening for delirium risk was 82%, the specificity 62%. The sensitivity of the screening for risk of falling was 63%, the specificity 65%. Independent predictors for mortality within 6 months were delirium risk (odds ratio (OR): 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-3.2), malnutrition (OR: 2.1; 95% CI 1.3-3.5), admission to a non-surgical ward (OR: 3.0; 95% CI 1.8-5.1), and older age (OR: 1.1; 95%CI 1.0-1.1). Patients classified by the VMS theme 'Frail elderly' as having more risk factors had a higher risk of dying (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The VMS screening for delirium is a reasonably reliable instrument for identifying those elderly people with a high risk of developing this condition; the VMS sensitivity for fall risk is moderate. The number of positive VMS risk factors correlates with mortality and may therefore be regarded as a measure of frailty.