Validated frailty measures using electronic primary care records: a review of diagnostic test accuracy.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of people who have or are at risk of frailty enables targeted interventions, and the use of tools that screen for frailty using electronic records (which we term as validated electronic frailty measures (VEFMs)) within primary care is incentivised by NHS England. We carried out a systematic review to establish the sensitivity and specificity of available primary care VEFMs when compared to a reference standard in-person assessment. METHODS: Medline, Pubmed, CENTRAL, CINHAL and Embase searches identified studies comparing a primary care VEFM with in-person assessment. Studies were quality assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies revised tool. Sensitivity and specificity values were extracted or were calculated and pooled using StatsDirect. RESULTS: There were 2,245 titles screened, with 10 studies included. These described three different index tests: electronic frailty index (eFI), claims-based frailty index (cFI) and polypharmacy. Frailty Phenotype was the reference standard in each study. One study of 60 patients examined the eFI, reporting a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.98) and a specificity of 0.78 (0.64, 0.89). Two studies of 7,679 patients examined cFI, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.74) and a specificity of 0.80 (0.53, 0.98). Seven studies of 34,328 patients examined a polypharmacy as a screening tool (defined as more than or equal to five medications) with a pooled sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.72) and a specificity of 0.66 (0.58, 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: eFI is the best-performing VEFM; however, based on our analysis of an average UK GP practice, it would return a high number of false-positive results. In conclusion, existing electronic frailty tools may not be appropriate for primary care-based population screening.

Impact of co-resident health and living alone on risk of hospital admission for people with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: People with Parkinson's Disease (PwP) have a higher rate of hospitalisation compared to the general population. Little is known about the impact of having a co-resident and their health on hospitalisation rates of PwP. METHODS: We utilised Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD data (2010-2015) to identify PwP and co-residents. We classed either the fittest or youngest adult as the primary caregiver in each household. Caregiver health was classified by the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score (CMS), primary care utilisation and prescriptions. We calculated the hospitalisation (elective, emergency) incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for PwP who lived alone compared to those with a caregiver using negative binomial regression, and whether worse caregiver health predicted higher risk of admissions. RESULTS: We identified 3254 PwP and 4007 family members. PwP who lived alone were less likely to have an elective admission (0.79; 95 % CI 0.69-0.91) and more likely to have an emergency admission (1.40; 95 % CI 1.70-1.54). Worse caregiver health, as measured by the CMS, was associated with an increased risk of emergency admission (IRR 1.35; 95 % CI 1.17-1.57), but this attenuated and was consistent with chance in the fully adjusted model (1.04; 95 % CI 0.95-1.13). No strong associations were seen between caregiver health and elective admissions. CONCLUSION: PwP who live alone are at increased risk of emergency and less likely to have elective hospital admissions. It is important that health care providers support such people and ensure they receive equitable access to the potential benefits of elective procedures.