Emergency nurses' preference for tools to identify frailty in major trauma patients: A prospective multi-centre cross-sectional study.

Background: Frailty is known to be a predictor of poor recovery following trauma and there is evidence that providing early frailty specific care can improve functional and health outcomes. Accurate assessment of frailty is key to its early identification and subsequent provision of specialist care. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of different frailty screening tools to nurses administering them in the ED in patients admitted following traumatic injury.
Methods: Patients aged 65 and over attending the Emergency Department of five major trauma centres following injury participated in the study between June 2019 and March 2020. Patients were assessed using the clinical frailty scale (CFS), Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 (PRIMSA7), and the Trauma Specific Frailty Index (TSFI). Nurses were asked to rank ease of use and to state their preference for each of the tools from best to worst. If the tool was not able to be completed fully then free text responses were enabled to identify reasons. Accuracy of the tool in identifying if the patient was frail or not was determined by comparison with frailty determined by a geriatrician.
Results: Data were analysed from 372 patients. Completion rates for each of the tools varied, with highest degree of compliance using the CFS (98.9%). TSFI was least likely to be completed with "lack of available information to complete questions" as the most cited reason. Nurses showed a clear preference for the CFS with 57.3% ranking this as first choice (PRISMA-7 32.16%; TSFI 10.54%). Both PRISMA-7 and CFS were both rated highly as 'extremely easy to complete' (PRISMA-7 58.5%, CFS 59.61%).
Conclusion: Our results suggest that nurses from five centres preferred to use the CFS to assess frailty in ED major trauma patients.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)