Search

Introduction: Frailty is an age-related condition with increased risk for adverse health outcomes. Assessing frailty according to the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) based on data from medical records is useful for previously unassessed patients, but the validity of such scores in exclusively geriatric populations and in patients with dementia is relatively unknown. Methods: Patients admitted for the first time to one of two geriatric wards at Örebro University hospital between January 1st – December 31st, 2021, were included in this study if they had been appointed a CFS-score by anamnestic interview (CFSI) at admission. CFS scores based on medical records (CFSR) were appointed by a single medical student, who was blinded to the CFSI score. Score-agreement was evaluated with quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa (κ). Results: In total, 145 patients between the age of 55–101 were included in the study. The CFSR and CFSI scores agreed perfectly in 102 cases (0.7, 95% CI 0.65–0.77). There was no significant difference regarding age, sex, comorbidity, or number of patients diagnosed with dementia between the patients with complete agreement and the patients whose scores did not agree. Agreement between the scores was substantial, κ = 0.66, 95% CI 0.53–0.80. Conclusions: CFS scores based on information from medical records can be generated with substantial agreement to CFS scores based on in-person anamnestic interviews. A dementia diagnosis does not influence the agreement between the scores. Therefore, these scores are a useful tool for assessing frailty in geriatric patients who previously lack a frailty assessment, both in clinical practice and future research. The results support previous findings, but larger studies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aging population is a challenge for the healthcare system that must identify strategies that meet their needs. Practicing patient-centered care has been shown beneficial for this patient-group. The effect of patient-centered care is called patient-centered outcomes and can be appraised using outcomes measurements. Objectives: The main aim was to review and map existing knowledge related to patient-centered outcomes and patient-centered outcomes measurements for older people, as well as identify key-concepts and knowledge-gaps. The research questions were: How can patient-centered outcomes for older people be measured, and which patient-centered outcomes matters the most for the older people? Study design: Scoping review. Methods: Search for relevant publications in electronical databases, grey literature databases and websites from year 2000 to 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full text review and extraction of data using a data extraction framework. Results: Eighteen studies were included, of which six with involvement of patients and/or experts in the process on determine the outcomes. Outcomes that matter the most to older people was interpreted as: access to- and experience of care, autonomy and control, cognition, daily living, emotional health, falls, general health, medications, overall survival, pain, participation in decision making, physical function, physical health, place of death, social role function, symptom burden, and time spent in hospital. The most frequently mentioned/used outcomes measurements tools were the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), EQ-5D, Gait Speed, Katz- ADL index, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), SF/RAND-36 and 4-Item Screening Zarit Burden Interview. Conclusions: Few studies have investigated the older people's opinion of what matters the most to them, which forms a knowledge-gap in the field. Future research should focus on providing older people a stronger voice in what they think matters the most to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]