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).

Man versus machine: comparison of naked-eye estimation and quantified capillary refill.

BACKGROUND: Capillary refill (CR) time is traditionally assessed by 'naked-eye' inspection of the return to original colour of a tissue after blanching pressure. Few studies have addressed intra-observer reliability or used objective quantification techniques to assess time to original colour. This study compares naked-eye assessment with quantified CR (qCR) time using polarisation spectroscopy and examines intra-observer and interobserver agreements in using the naked eye. METHOD: A film of 18 CR tests (shown in a random fixed order) performed in healthy adults was assessed by a convenience sample of 14 doctors, 15 nurses and 19 secretaries (Department of Emergency Medicine, Linköping University, September to November 2017), who were asked to estimate the time to return to colour and characterise it as 'fast', 'normal' or 'slow'. The qCR times and corresponding naked-eye time assessments were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Three videos were shown twice without observers' knowledge to measure intra-observer repeatability. Intra-observer categorical assessments were compared using Cohen's Kappa analysis. Interobserver repeatability was measured and depicted with multiple-observer Bland-Altman plotting. Differences in naked-eye estimation between professions were analysed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Naked-eye assessed CR time and qCR time differ substantially, and agreement for the categorical assessments (naked-eye assessment vs qCR classification) was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.27). Bland-Altman intra-observer repeatability ranged from 6% to 60%. Interobserver agreement was low as shown by the Bland-Altman plotting with a 95% limit of agreement with the mean of ±1.98 s for doctors, ±1.6 s for nurses and ±1.75 s for secretaries. The difference in CR time estimation (in seconds) between professions was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that naked-eye-assessed CR time shows poor reproducibility, even by the same observers, and differs from an objective measure of CR time.

Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy: Getting the Capillary Refill Test Under One's Thumb.

The capillary refill test was introduced in 1947 to help estimate circulatory status in critically ill patients. Guidelines commonly state that refill should occur within 2 s after releasing 5 s of firm pressure (e.g., by the physician's finger) in the normal healthy supine patient. A slower refill time indicates poor skin perfusion, which can be caused by conditions including sepsis, blood loss, hypoperfusion, and hypothermia. Since its introduction, the clinical usefulness of the test has been debated. Advocates point out its feasibility and simplicity and claim that it can indicate changes in vascular status earlier than changes in vital signs such as heart rate. Critics, on the other hand, stress that the lack of standardization in how the test is performed and the highly subjective nature of the naked eye assessment, as well as the test's susceptibility to ambient factors, markedly lowers the clinical value. The aim of the present work is to describe in detail the course of the refill event and to suggest potentially more objective and exact endpoint values for the capillary refill test using diffuse polarization spectroscopy.