Translation of the updated clinical frailty scale 2.0 into Danish and implications for cross-sectoral reliability

Søren Kabell Nissen,Karen Andersen-Ranberg,Mikkel Brabrand,Claire Gudex,Jørgen T. Lauridsen,Anders Fournaise,Lone Musaeus Poulsen,Christian H. Nickel,Jesper Ryg

doi:10.1186/s12877-021-02222-w

Abstract

The Clinical Frailty Scale, which provides a common language about frailty, was recently updated to version 2.0 to cater for its increased use in areas of medicine usually involved in the care and treatment of older patients. We have previously translated the Clinical Frailty Scale 1.2 into Danish and found inter-rater-reliability to be excellent for primary care physicians, community nurses, and hospital doctors often involved in cross-sectoral collaborations. In this correspondence we present the Danish translation and cultural adaption of the Clinical Frailty Scale 2.0. Our recent findings on cross-sectoral inter-rater reliability for the Clinical Frailty Scale 1.2 are likely also applicable for the Clinical Frailty Scale 2.0.

Highlights

The previous version of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS 1.2) was recently translated into Danish and published alongside results from a cross-sectoral inter-rater reliability study among primary care physicians, community nurses, and hospital doctors [1]
We found excellent inter-rater reliability across these four groups of health care professionals, supporting the notion that the CFS has the potential to serve as a common reference tool when treating and rehabilitating older patients
Other changes include additional information on differentiating between severe and very severe dementia and the writing out of “instrumental activities of daily life”, which was previously presented just in its abbreviated form, “Instrumental Activities of Daily Life (IADL)”)

Summary

Background

The previous version of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS 1.2) was recently translated into Danish and published alongside results from a cross-sectoral inter-rater reliability study among primary care physicians, community nurses, and hospital doctors [1]. We found excellent inter-rater reliability across these four groups of health care professionals, supporting the notion that the CFS has the potential to serve as a common reference tool when treating and rehabilitating older patients. The developers of the CFS have modified the instrument (CFS 2.0) to facilitate its use as a triage tool regarding intensive care treatment for older patients with COVID-19 [2, 3] and to increase its relevance in areas of

Results

Discussion

Conclusion