ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: La fragilidad puede ser detectada con distintas herramientas y en múltiples entornos. Entre los diferentes sistemas de cribado, la velocidad de marcha (VM) y el Timed Up-and- Go (TUG) se postulan como sistemas sencillos y fácilmente aplicables. Existen pocos datos sobre su aplicabilidad en pacientes hospitalizados en centros de atención intermedia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo para determinar la aplicabilidad de la VM y el TUG como herramientas de cribado de fragilidad en un hospital de atención intermedia, así como una estimación de la prevalencia de fragilidad al alta mediante estas pruebas de ejecución funcional. Se consideraron frágiles los pacientes con una VM<1m/s y/o un TUG>12s. Se incluyeron todos pacientes atendidos por la unidad de rehabilitación del centro a lo largo del año 2015. RESULTADOS: Novecientos nueve fueron los pacientes incluidos (edad media de 80,12 años). De estos, solo 205 (22,6%) estaban en condiciones de realizar la VM y TUG en el momento del alta; de estas 205 personas, el 89,8% (VM) y el 92,2% (TUG) presentaban criterios de fragilidad, no habiendo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre ambas herramientas (p = 0,25). CONCLUSIONES: La utilización de la VM y el TUG para el cribado de fragilidad tiene una aplicabilidad limitada en el entorno de atención intermedia. A pesar de ello, los resultados obtenidos indican una alta prevalencia de fragilidad en este entorno. Serán necesarios más estudios para corroborar estos datos
INTRODUCTION: Frailty screening can be performed with different tools and in multiple settings. Among the different evaluation systems, gait speed (GS) and Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) are postulated as simple and easy to apply systems. There are few data on the prevalence of frailty in intermediate care centre inpatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study to determine the applicability of GS and TUG as frailty screening tools in an intermediate care hospital, as well as an estimate of frailty prevalence at discharge. Frailty was considered when GS<1m/s and / or TUG>12seconds. The study included all patients attending the rehabilitation unit of the centre throughout 2015. RESULTS: A total of 909 patients were included (mean age of 80.12 years). Only 205 (22.6%) were able to perform GS and TUG at discharge from the rehabilitation unit. Frailty prevalence for this group was between 89.8% (GS) and 92.2% (TUG), with no statistical differences between both tools (P=.25). CONCLUSIONS: The applicability of GS and TUG for frailty screening in intermediate care hospitals is limited. Despite this, the results obtained suggest a high prevalence of frailty. More studies will be necessary to corroborate this data
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Executive Function/physiology , Neuropsychological Tests/statistics & numerical data , Frailty/diagnosis , Reproducibility of Results , Mass Screening/methods , Frail Elderly/psychology , Intermediate Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Epidemiology, Descriptive , Walking Speed/physiology , Rehabilitation Centers/statistics & numerical data , Frailty/rehabilitation , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Frailty screening can be performed with different tools and in multiple settings. Among the different evaluation systems, gait speed (GS) and Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) are postulated as simple and easy to apply systems. There are few data on the prevalence of frailty in intermediate care centre inpatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study to determine the applicability of GS and TUG as frailty screening tools in an intermediate care hospital, as well as an estimate of frailty prevalence at discharge. Frailty was considered when GS<1m/s and / or TUG>12seconds. The study included all patients attending the rehabilitation unit of the centre throughout 2015. RESULTS: A total of 909 patients were included (mean age of 80.12 years). Only 205 (22.6%) were able to perform GS and TUG at discharge from the rehabilitation unit. Frailty prevalence for this group was between 89.8% (GS) and 92.2% (TUG), with no statistical differences between both tools (P=.25). CONCLUSIONS: The applicability of GS and TUG for frailty screening in intermediate care hospitals is limited. Despite this, the results obtained suggest a high prevalence of frailty. More studies will be necessary to corroborate this data.