Association between Clinical Frailty Scale score and hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 (COMET): an international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. METHODS: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1-3), mildly frail (CFS4-5), or frail (CFS6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution. FUNDING: LOEY Foundation.

Predictive validity of a two-step tool to map frailty in primary care.

BACKGROUND: EASY-Care Two step Older people Screening (EASY-Care TOS) is a stepped approach to identify frail older people at risk for negative health outcomes in primary care, and makes use of General Practitioners' (GPs) readily-available information. We aimed to determine the predictive value of EASY-Care TOS for negative health outcomes within the year from assessment. METHODS: A total of 587 patients of four GP practices in and around Nijmegen (The Netherlands) consented to participate in a longitudinal primary care registry based cohort study. Participants' frailty was judged by their GP following the EASY-Care TOS procedure and by a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) at baseline. After one year health outcomes of the participants were measured by reassessment with the EASY-Care TOS procedure. RESULTS: Follow up information was available for 520 of 587 participants. In the non-frail group 9% showed any negative health outcomes (death, ADL decline, institutionalisation, too ill to undergo assessment), against 30% in the frail group (95% confidence interval of the difference (CI): 14%-28%). Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of the EASY-Care TOS frailty judgement for a composite of negative health outcomes mentioned was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.73). Compared with discrimination on the basis of age, sex and GP practice (AUC 0.70), adding EASY-Care TOS frailty judgement increased the AUC to 0.75 (+0.05, p = 0.02). The AUC on the basis of a full CGA is almost comparable to the AUC of the model with age, sex, and frailty judgement with EASY-Care TOS: 0.76 (+0.07, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: GPs applying the EASY-Care TOS procedure, where they only perform additional assessment when they judge this as necessary, can predict negative health outcomes in their older populations efficiently and almost as accurately as a complete specialist CGA.

Diagnosis of frailty after a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: differences between family physicians and geriatricians.

BACKGROUND: To compare the outcomes of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments by family physicians and geriatricians. METHODS: An explorative observational study was conducted in six family practices (12 ambulatory family practitioners) and 1 geriatric department (4 hospital-based geriatricians) from a university medical center in Nijmegen (the Netherlands). As participants, we included 587 patients aged 70 years and older and registered in the six family practices. The main outcome measures were the judgment on the following: 1) absence or presence of frailty and 2) the state (good-fair-poor) on 8 underlying domains (physical, medication, cognition, sensory, instrumental activities of daily living scale, mobility, mental, and social) according to family practitioners and geriatricians based on a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. RESULTS: Family physicians and geriatricians agreed on frailty absence/presence in 76% of cases. Geriatricians considered elderly more often frail than family physicians did (n = 294, 50% vs n = 213, 36%). Disagreement on frailty status was notably found in the patients who had less distinct, either poor or good, health states. Discordant frailty judgments, in which the geriatrician rated a person as frail and the family physicians did not, were related to geriatricians more often rating physical health as impaired. Further, geriatricians' judgments of frailty were more strongly related to impaired scores on the domains cognition, sensory, mobility, and mental compared with family physicians judgments: odds ratios 79.3 versus 9.3, 7.6 versus 2.0, 25.0 versus 3.0, and 18.0 versus 2.2, respectively. Impaired physical health and problematic medication use had equally strong associations with frailty in geriatricians and family physicians: odds ratios of 11.5 versus 10.4 and 2.4 versus 2.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatricians more often judge patients as frail compared with family physicians and seem to evaluate the available information differently. With increasing collaboration between primary and secondary care, understanding these differences becomes increasingly relevant.

Construct validity and reliability of a two-step tool for the identification of frail older people in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To study the reliability and construct validity of the EASY-Care Two-step Older persons Screening (EASY-Care TOS), a practice-based tool that helps family physicians (FPs) to identify their frail older patients. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This validation study was conducted in six FP practices. We determined the construct validity by comparing the results of the EASY-Care TOS with other commonly used frailty constructs [Fried Frailty Criteria (FFC), Frailty Index (FI)] and with other related constructs (ie, multimorbidity, disability, cognition, mobility, mental well-being, and social context). To determine interrater reliability, an independent second EASY-Care TOS assessment was made for a subpopulation. RESULTS: We included 587 older patients (mean age 77 ± 5 years, 56% women). According to EASY-Care TOS, 39.4% of patients were frail. EASY-Care TOS frailty correlated better with FI frailty (0.63) than with FFC frailty (0.52). A high correlation was found with multimorbidity (0.50), disabilities (0.53), and mobility (0.55) and a moderate correlation with cognition (0.31) and mental well-being (0.38). Reliability testing showed 89% agreement (Cohen's κ 0.63) between EASY-Care TOS frailty judgment by two different assessments. CONCLUSION: EASY-Care TOS correlated well with relevant physical and psychosocial measures. Accordingly, these results show that the EASY-Care TOS identifies patients who have a wide spectrum of interacting problems.

Feasibility evaluation of a stepped procedure to identify community-dwelling frail older people in general practice. A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of frailty identification methods in general practice has hardly been established. To achieve successful implementation, general practitioners (GPs) should be provided with an identification method that suits their needs. EASYcare-TOS is a new frailty identification method that uses a stepped approach and is specifically developed for use in general practice. The first step consists of the GP's frailty judgment based on his prior information on the patient. If the judgment is 'uncertain' or 'frail,' additional data are collected by a primary care nurse (PCN). The frailty decision is based on clinical reasoning by the GP, without applying predefined cut-offs in a numerical score. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability of EASYcare-TOS in daily general practice. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted. Questionnaires were sent to all professionals (n = 25) who participated in the EASYcare-TOS validation study. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals (n = 12) and patients (n = 9) were conducted. RESULTS: Time investment was generally perceived as acceptable. Twenty-two professionals (88%) found a two-step model (very) useful in the identification instrument. Seventeen professionals (68%) valued making the final frailty decision by their own clinical reasoning. Patients appreciated the broad assessment and the advice given based on the assessment. According to 24 (96%) professionals, EASYcare-TOS improved the quality of patient care. GPs stated that implementation will ask for reconsidering allocation of tasks in general practices and adequate reimbursement. CONCLUSION: EASYcare-TOS is a new identification method that fits the needs of primary care professionals to a large extent and is acceptable in daily practice.

Development of an instrument for the identification of frail older people as a target population for integrated care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is increasingly interested in the identification of frailty, as it selects the target population for integrated care. However, instruments for the identification of frailty specifically validated for use in primary care are scarce. This study developed the Easycare Two-step Older persons Screening (Easycare-TOS), which provides a valid, efficient, and pragmatic screening procedure to identify frail older people. AIM: This paper aims to describe the development of the Easycare-TOS and the data from the pilot studies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational pilot study in seven academic GP practices in and around Nijmegen, The Netherlands. METHOD: The Easycare-TOS was developed in a cyclic process with the input of stakeholders. In every cycle, the requirements were first defined, then translated into a prototype that was tested in a pilot study. The Easycare-TOS makes optimal use of prior knowledge of the GP, and the professionals' appraisal is decisive in the frailty decision, instead of a cut-off score. Further, it considers aspects of frailty, as well as aspects of the care context of the patient. RESULTS: The pilot data have shown that after step 1, two-thirds of the patients do not need further assessment, because they are judged as not frail, based on prior knowledge of the GP. The overall prevalence of frailty in this pilot study is 24%. Most professionals who participated in the pilot studies considered the time investment acceptable and the method to be of added value. CONCLUSION: The Easycare-TOS instrument meets the predefined efficiency, flexibility, and acceptability requirements for use as an identification instrument for frailty in primary care.

Home visits for frail older people: a qualitative study on the needs and preferences of frail older people and their informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: A number of studies have examined the effects of home visits and showed inconsistent results on physical functioning, institutionalisation, and mortality. Despite continuing interest from professionals in home visits for older people, reports on older people's needs and preferences for such visits are scarce. AIM: This qualitative study aims to explore the views and needs of community-dwelling frail older people concerning home visits. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study including interviews with frail older persons and their informal caregivers living in the area of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with frail older people and informal caregivers. A grounded theory approach was used for data-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven frail older people and 11 informal caregivers were included. Most participants emphasised the importance of home visits for frail older people. They felt that it would give older people the personal attention they used to receive from GPs but miss nowadays. Most stated that this would give them more trust in GPs. Participants stated that trust is one of the most important factors in a good patient-professional relationship. Further, participants preferred home visits to focus on the psychosocial context of the patient. They stated that more knowledge of the psychosocial context and a good patient-professional relationship would enable the professional to provide better and more patient-centred care. CONCLUSION: Patients' expectations of home visits are quite different from the actual purpose of home visiting programmes; that is, care and wellbeing versus cure and prevention. This difference may partly explain why the effectiveness of home visits remains controversial. Future studies on home visits should involve patients in the development of home visiting programmes.

Embolization to treat pelvic congestion syndrome and vulval varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of embolization for treating the symptoms of pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS). METHODS: Twenty-one women with PCS who were treated with embolization at Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre between 2003 and 2008 were sent a questionnaire about their symptoms before embolization, 2 months after the first embolization, and at the time the survey was conducted. RESULTS: All patients completed the questionnaire. Two months after the first embolization, 14 (66.7%) women had some degree of improvement of symptoms. Nine (42.9%) patients underwent a second embolization. At the time the survey was conducted, 16 (76.2%) patients had some degree of improvement of symptoms. In addition to improvements in varicose veins and pelvic pain, there was improvement of hemorrhoids. CONCLUSION: Embolization of pelvic varicosities may be an effective treatment in a well-selected group of patients with PCS. If there is no improvement of symptoms after initial embolization, a second procedure is unlikely to be effective.