72 Frailty Assessment in the Burn Population: A Single Center Retrospective Review

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Burn morbidity and mortality increases with advancing age. Frailty is characterized by reduced homeostatic reserves and is associated with an increased biological age compared to chronological age. Our primary aim was to determine whether frailty as assessed on admission would be predictive of outcomes in the burn population. Methods We conducted a single institution 7-month retrospective chart review of all admitted acute burn patients ages 45 and older. Patient and injury characteristics were collected and compared using standard statistical analysis. Frailty scores were assessed upon admission using the FRAIL Scale. Results Eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria and were able to complete the FRAIL assessment. Patient and injury characteristics are listed in Table 1. . Mean burn size was 6.7%TBSA (95%CI 4.9–8.4%). 34 patients (40%) were classified as robust (FRAIL score 0), 26(30.6%) as pre-frail (FRAIL score 1–2) and 25(29.4) as frail (FRAIL score 3–5). When comparing the robust, pre-frail, and frail cohorts, there was no difference between potentially confounding variables including %TBSA, presence of inhalation injury, presence of full thickness burns, intubation status on admission, presence of infection on admission, mechanism of injury, or delayed presentation status. There was no difference between the robust cohort compared to the pre-frail/frail cohort in overall mortality (p=.971), Patients in the pre-frail/frail cohort received more palliative care consultations (p=.096) and had a longer length of stay (3.3d vs 7.55d p = .002), while prefrail patients had a similar LOS to frail patients (7.46 vs 7.64d p =.938). Patients in the pre-frail/frail cohort were also more likely to be discharged to a higher level of care than they were admitted from(p=.032) with prefrail patients experience an escalation in level of care more frequently than frail patients. The distribution by age by half-decade ranges is in Figure 1. By age 55–59, the majority of patients were prefrail or frail. Conclusions We demonstrated that frailty as assessed by the FRAIL score was predictive of increased length of stay and an escalation in post discharge care. In addition, patients characterized as pre-frail experience outcomes similar to frail patients and should be managed as such. Given the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty in the younger group of patients, we advocate for routine frailty screening beginning at age 55. Applicability of Research to Practice Frailty scores upon admission may allow for a more complete assessment of a patient’s functional status and can help guide discussions of expected outcomes.