Search

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic accuracy of clinical judgment for frailty in older patients at the emergency department with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty.METHODS: A prospective cohort study in patients 70 years of age and older in 2 Dutch EDs with a follow-up of 3 months. A dichotomous question was asked to the physician and patient: "Do you consider the patient / yourself to be frail?" The Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) was used as a validated screening instrument. The primary composite outcome consisted of either functional decline, institutionalization, or mortality.RESULTS: A total of 736 patients were included. The physician identified 59% as frail, compared with 49% by ISAR-HP and 43% by patients themselves. The level of agreement was fair (Fleiss Kappa, 0.31). After 3 months, 31% of the patients experienced at least 1 adverse health outcome. The sensitivity was 79% for the physician, 72% for ISAR-HP, 61% for the patient, and 48% for all 3 combined. The specificity was 50% for the physician, 63% for ISAR-HP, 66% for the patient, and 85% for all 3 positive. The highest positive likelihood ratio was 3.03 (physician, ISAR-HP, patient combined), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio was 0.42 (physician). The areas under the receiver operating curves were all poor: 0.68 at best for ISAR-HP.CONCLUSION: Clinical judgment for frailty showed fair agreement with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. All 3 instruments have poor prognostic accuracy, which does not improve when combined. These findings illustrate the limited prognostic value of clinical judgment as a frailty screener in older patients at the ED.

Aims: Physical frailty screening is more commonly performed at outpatient heart failure (HF) clinics. However, this does not incorporate other common geriatric domains. This study assesses whether a multidomain geriatric assessment, in comparison with HF severity or physical frailty, is associated with short-term adverse outcomes. Methods and results: This is a prospective cohort study of 197 patients with HF (mean age 78, 44% female) attending outpatient HF clinics. HF severity was assessed with New York Heart Association class (I-II versus III-IV) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide levels. Physical frailty was assessed with the Fried frailty criteria (not frail, pre-frail, and frail). The following geriatric domains were assessed: physical function, nutrition, polypharmacy, cognition, and dependency in activities of daily living. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, diabetes and kidney function assessed 3 month risk of adverse health outcomes (emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and/or death) according to HF severity, physical frailty, and number of affected domains. Number (%) of patients with HF with no, 1, 2, and ≥3 domains affected were 36 (18%), 61 (31%), 58 (29%), and 42 (21%). Seventy-four adverse outcomes were experienced in 50 patients at follow-up. Severity of HF and physical frailty were not significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. However, increasing number of affected domains were significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Compared with no domains affected, odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1, 2, and ≥3 domains were 1.8 (0.5–6.5), 4.5 (1.3–15.4), and 7.2 (2.0–26.3) (P-trend

Older adults at the emergency department (ED) with polypharmacy, comorbidity, and frailty are at risk of adverse health outcomes. We investigated the association of polypharmacy with adverse health outcomes, in relation to comorbidity and frailty.This is a prospective cohort study in ED patients ≥ 70 years. Non-polypharmacy was defined as 0-4 medications, polypharmacy 5-9 and excessive polypharmacy ≥ 10. Comorbidity was classified by the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Frailty was defined by the Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) score. The primary outcome was 3-month mortality. Secondary outcomes were readmission to an ED/hospital ward and a self-reported fall 3 months. The association between polypharmacy, comorbidity and frailty was analyzed by logistic regression.881 patients were included. 43% had polypharmacy and 18% had excessive polypharmacy. After 3 months, 9% died, 30% were readmitted, and 21% reported a fall. Compared with non-polypharmacy, the odds ratio (OR) for mortality ranged from 2.62 (95% CI 1.39-4.93) in patients with polypharmacy to 3.92 (95% CI 1.95-7.90) in excessive polypharmacy. The OR weakened after adjustment for comorbidity: 1.80 (95% CI 0.92-3.52) and 2.32 (95% CI 1.10-4.90). After adjusting for frailty, the OR weakened to 2.10 (95% CI 1.10-4.00) and OR 2.40 (95% CI 1.15-5.02). No significant association was found for readmission or self-reported fall.Polypharmacy is common in older patients at the ED. Polypharmacy, and especially excessive polypharmacy, is associated with an increased risk of mortality. The observed association is complex given the confounding effect of comorbidity and frailty.

Objective Old or frail acutely hospitalised patients can benefit from geriatric rehabilitation but criteria concerning referral decisions are unclear. This review presents an overview of clinical factors associated with referral to geriatric rehabilitation that may further consensus between hospital and rehabilitation professionals on triage. Design Scoping review. Methods A review was conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. The search included literature concerning a broad spectrum of acutely hospitalised patients and factors associated with their referral to geriatric rehabilitation. Results Selected abstracts were categorised into distinct geriatric rehabilitation care pathways such as stroke, hip fracture, amputation of lower limb, cardiac and oncologic rehabilitation. Abstracts on internal medical patients were further reviewed and 29 studies were included. A total of 13 studies focused on factors identifying rehabilitation needs and 16 on factors associated with outcome of geriatric rehabilitation. Triage factors were diverse and included frailty status, functional decline, cognitive symptoms and multimorbidity. Mood symptoms and living situation further specified post-acute care needs. In overview, triage factors could be characterised as demographic (n = 4), diagnosis-related (n = 8), mental (n = 6), functional (n = 10) or multi-domain (n = 12) and mapped in a transitional care pathway. Conclusions and implications Frailty and functional decline are characteristics frequently associated with referral to geriatric rehabilitation of acutely hospitalised internal medical patients. A comprehensive geriatric assessment or a simpler multi-domain set of tests reveals rehabilitation needs and approximates a functional prognosis. Professional consensus on factors and timing of triage in hospital is within reach.

Optimizing emergency care for the aging population is an important future challenge, as the proportion of older patients at the emergency department (ED) rapidly increases. Older patients, particularly those who are frail, have a high risk of adverse outcomes after an ED visit, such as functional decline, institutionalization, and death. The ED can have a key position in identifying frail older patients who benefit most from comprehensive geriatric care [including delirium preventive measures, early evaluation of after-discharge care, and a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA)]. However, performing extensive frailty assessment is not suitable at the ED. Therefore, quick and easy-to-use instruments are needed to identify older patients at risk for adverse outcomes. This narrative review outlines the importance and complexity of frailty assessment at the ED. It aligns the available screening instruments, including clinical judgment as frailty assessment, and summarizes arguments for and against frailty assessment at the ED.

Study objective: Older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) are at high risk of adverse health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 4 frequently used screening instruments for the prediction of adverse health outcomes among older adults in the ED. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in patients ≥70 years of age presenting to the ED in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands. Screening instruments included the acutely presenting older patient screening program (APOP) (providing 2 risk scores—functional decline [APOP1] and mortality [APOP2]), the International Resident Assessment Instrument Emergendy Department screener (InterRAI ED), the Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP), and the safety management system (VMS). The primary outcome measure was a composite outcome encompassing functional decline, institutionalization, and mortality at 3 months after ED presentation. Other follow-up time points were 1 and 6 months. Analyses were performed to assess prognostic accuracy. Results: In total, 889 patients were included. After 3 months, 267 (31%) patients experienced at least 1 adverse outcome. The positive likelihood ratio ranged from 1.67 (VMS) to 3.33 (APOP1), and the negative likelihood ratio ranged from 0.41 (ISAR-HP) to 0.88 (APOP2). Sensitivity ranged from 17% (APOP2) to 74% (ISAR-HP), and specificity ranged from 63% (ISAR-HP) to 94% (APOP2). The area under the curve ranged from 0.62 (APOP2) to 0.72 (APOP1 and ISAR-HP). Calibration was reasonable for APOP1 and VMS. The prognostic accuracy was comparable across all outcomes and at all follow-up time points. Conclusion: The frailty screening instruments assessed in this study showed poor to moderate prognostic accuracy, which brings into question their usability in the prediction of adverse health outcomes among older adults who present to the ED.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frailty, loneliness, and social isolation are all associated with adverse outcomes in older adults, but little is known about their combined impact on mortality.DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.SETTING: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam.PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults aged 65 and older (n = 1,427).MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured with the frailty phenotype (Fried criteria). Loneliness was assessed with the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Social isolation was operationalized using information on partner status, social support, and network size. Two categorical variables were created, for each possible combination regarding frailty and loneliness (FL) and frailty and social isolation (FS), respectively. Mortality was monitored over a period of 22 years (1995-2017). Survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to study the effects of the FL and FS combinations on mortality. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, depression, chronic diseases, and smoking.RESULTS: Frailty prevalence was 13%, and 5.9% of the sample were frail and lonely, and 6.2% frail and socially isolated. In fully adjusted models, older adults who were only frail had a higher risk of mortality compared with people without any of the conditions (hazard ratio [HR] range = 1.40-1.48; P CONCLUSION: Frail older adults are at increased risk of mortality, but this risk is even higher for those who are also lonely or socially isolated. To optimize well-being and health outcomes in physically frail older adults, targeted interventions focusing on both subjective and objective social vulnerability are needed.

Acutely ill older adults are at high risk of adverse health outcomes, including loss of function, loss of independence, and mortality. Screening instruments may aid the identification of older adults who are at high risk of negative health outcomes. An extensive geriatric examination, by means of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), and fit-for-purpose interventions, such as drawing an inventory of the required aftercare, instructions upon discharge, and Advance Care Planning (ACP) can all contribute to improved outcomes. The implementation of screening for vulnerability in the emergency department requires a tailored approach. The current screening instruments differ in terms of target population, moment of application, outcome measures and predictive properties. The APOP screener has been developed and validated in Dutch hospitals. A screening instrument is always part of a broader repertoire, such as education, awareness, adjustment of care processes and protocols, and implementation of appropriate interventions, all aimed at improving outcomes for acutely ill older adults.