Abstract
Abstract Introduction Emergency department (ED) frailty screening is recommended in guidelines for its potential to trigger earlier and more appropriate comprehensive evaluation and intervention for the most vulnerable patients. Post-implementation studies of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) typically observe around 50% concordance with screening. Little is known regarding the characteristics of those people omitted. Methods The Frailty in European Emergency Departments (FEED) cohort study observed prevalence of frailty, administering the CFS to consecutive attenders over twenty-four hours. Retrospective ‘normal day’ data from two weeks prior were also collected, where sites used retrievable electronic health records. Age, sex, ethnic group, mode and time of arrival and departure, NEWS2 score, and use of resuscitation areas were recorded. CFS missingness was assessed for distribution and dependency with other variables using chi-squared tests. The frailty distributions in prospective and retrospective data were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results Only five of sixty-two sites collected CFS scores in retrievable electronic records. The cohorts included 368 individuals prospectively and 399 retrospectively. At these sites, 14% prospective and 55% retrospective CFS observations were missing. CFS entries were more frequently missing in people with non-white ethnic group (p = 0.007) and self-presentation (p < 0.001). The distributions of CFS differed significantly (p = 0.009); on the retrospective day, no individuals were assigned CFS scores 1 or 9, and CFS scores 4 and 6 were over-represented. Conclusion Acknowledging the limited participation and use of snapshot data, these findings alert the presence of systematic, non-random missing data in routine CFS screening. Systematic missingness in frailty data has critical implications for research in geriatric emergency medicine, presenting real limitations in validity where studies seek to analyse routinely collected data to reach representative inferences. Screening practices and retrievability of data warrant further study and improvement.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.