Search

Background: Frailty is an important determinant of health-care needs and outcomes for people in hospital., Objectives: To compare characteristics and predictive ability of a multidomain frailty index derived from routine health data (electronic frailty index-acute hospital; eFI-AH) with the hospital frailty risk score (HFRS)., Methods: This retrospective study included 6771 patients aged ≥75 years admitted to an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital between October 2019 and September 2020. The eFI-AH and the HFRS were calculated for each patient and compared with respect to characteristics, agreement, association with age and ability to predict outcomes., Results: Median eFI-AH was 0.17 (range 0-0.66) whilst median HFRS was 3.2 (range 0-42.9). Moderate agreement was shown between the tools (Pearson's r 0.61). After adjusting for age and gender, both models had associations with long hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, unplanned all-cause readmission and fall-related readmission. Specifically, the eFI-AH had the strongest association with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.81, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.49-3.17), whilst the HFRS was most strongly associated with long hospital stay (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.18-1.21). Both tools predicted hospital stay >10 days with good discrimination and calibration., Conclusions: Although the eFI-AH and the HFRS did not consistently identify the same inpatients as frail, both were associated with adverse outcomes and they had comparable predictive ability for prolonged hospitalisation. These two constructs of frailty may have different implications for clinical practice and health service provision and planning., (© 2022 The Authors. Australasian Journal on Ageing published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of AJA Inc’.)

Objective(s): To develop and validate a frailty index (FI) that covers multiple domains, using routine hospital data. To investigate the FI's validity, after excluding medication-related items (FI-ExMeds), for studies of frailty and polypharmacy., Methods: A FI was derived from routine NSW hospital data following standard published guidance. In a development cohort (151 inpatients ≥ 70 years), the FI was correlated with the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale (REFS) using Pearson's R. Validity and distribution of FI and FI-ExMeds, and correlation with each other, were evaluated in a validation cohort (999 inpatients ≥ 75 years)., Results: The mean FI for the development cohort was 0.27 (SD 0.09). The FI showed moderate linear correlation with the REFS (n = 148, R = 0.52, P < .001). In the validation cohort, mean FI (n = 993) and FI-ExMeds (n = 990) were both 0.28 (SD 0.11). FI-ExMeds showed high linear correlation with the FI (n = 990, R = 0.99, P < .001)., Conclusion: This multi-domain FI is comparable to REFS, with adequate redundancy to exclude deficits for specific analyses., (© 2020 AJA Inc.)