Frailty Assessment Tools Research Articles

Is the clinical frailty scale feasible to use in an emergency department setting? A mixed methods study

BackgroundThe Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool used to identify frailty in older patients visiting the emergency department (ED). However, the current understanding of how it is used and accepted in ED clinical practice is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of CFS in an ED setting.MethodsThis was a prospective, mixed methods study conducted in three Swedish EDs where CFS had recently been introduced. We examined the completion rate of CFS assessments in relation to patient- and organisational factors. A survey on staff experience of using CFS was also conducted. All quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while free text comments underwent a qualitative content analysis.ResultsA total of 4235 visits were analysed, and CFS assessments were performed in 47%. The completion rate exceeded 50% for patients over the age of 80. Patients with low triage priority were assessed to a low degree (24%). There was a diurnal variation with the highest completion rates seen for arrivals between 6 and 12 a.m. (58%). The survey response rate was 48%. The respondents rated the perceived relevance and the ease of use of the CFS with a median of 5 (IQR 2) on a scale with 7 being the highest. High workload, forgetfulness and critical illness were ranked as the top three barriers to assessment. The qualitative analysis showed that CFS assessments benefit from a clear routine and a sense of apparent relevance to emergency care.ConclusionMost emergency staff perceived CFS as relevant and easy to use, yet far from all older ED patients were assessed. The most common barrier to assessment was high workload. Measures to facilitate use may include clarifying the purpose of the assessment with explicit follow-up actions, as well as formulating a clear routine for the assessment.RegistrationThe study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 2021-06-18 (identifier: NCT04931472).

Prevalence and assessment of frailty in interstitial lung disease - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Frailty is a multisystem dysregulation that challenges homeostasis and increases vulnerability towards stressors. In patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILD) frailty is associated with poorer lung function, greater physical impairment, and higher symptom burden. Our understanding of the prevalence of frailty in ILD and consequently its impact on the ILD population is limited. We aimed to systematically review frailty assessment tools and to determine frailty prevalence across different ILD cohorts. Meta-analyses were used to calculate the pooled prevalence of frailty in the ILD population. We identified 26 studies (15 full-texts, 11 conference abstracts) including a total of 4614 patients with ILD. The most commonly used frailty assessment tools were the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and the cumulative Frailty Index (FI). Data allowed for meta-analyses of FFP and SPPB prevalence. The pooled prevalence of frailty was 35% (95% CI 25%-45%) by FFP, and 19% (95% CI 12%-28%) by SPPB. Frailty is common in ILD, with considerable variability of frailty prevalence depending on the frailty assessment tool used. These findings highlight the importance of frailty in ILD and the need for a standardized approach to frailty assessment in this population.

Towards an operational definition of oral frailty: A e-Delphi study

ObjectivesBuilding upon our recently developed conceptual definition of oral frailty (the age-related functional decline of orofacial structures), this e-Delphi study aims to develop an operational definition of oral frailty by identifying its components. MethodsWe used a modified e-Delphi study to reach a consensus among international experts on the components of oral frailty. Twelve out of fifteen invited experts in the field of gerodontology participated. Experts responded to three rounds of an online 5-point scale questionnaire of components to be included or excluded from the operational definition of oral frailty. After each round, scores and rationales were shared with all experts, after which they could revise their position. A consensus was reached when at least 70% of the experts agreed on whether or not a component should be included in the operational definition of oral frailty. ResultsThe experts achieved a high level of agreement (80 – 100%) on including eight components of oral frailty and excluding nineteen. The operational definition of oral frailty should include the following components: 1) difficulty eating hard or tough foods, 2) inability to chew all types of foods, 3) decreased ability to swallow solid foods, 4) decreased ability to swallow liquids, 5) overall poor swallowing function, 6) impaired tongue movement, 7) speech or phonatory disorders, and 8) hyposalivation or xerostomia. ConclusionThis e-Delphi study provided eight components that make up the operational definition of oral frailty. These components are the foundation for the next stage, which involves developing an oral frailty assessment tool.

Role of Frailty Status in Prediction of Clinical Outcomes of Traumatic Spinal Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Although many frailty tools have been used to predict traumatic spinal injury (TSI) outcomes, identifying predictors of outcomes after TSI in the aged population is difficult. Frailty, age, and TSI association are interesting topics of discussion in geriatric literature. However, the association between these variables are yet to be clearly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the association between frailty and TSI outcomes. The authors searched Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant studies. Studies with observational designs that assessed baseline frailty status in individuals suffering from TSI published from inception until 26th March 2023 were included. Length of hospital stay (LoS), adverse events (AEs), and mortality were the outcomes of interest. Of the 2425 citations, 16 studies involving 37,640 participants were included. The modified frailty index (mFI) was the most common tool used to assess frailty. Meta-analysis was employed only in studies that used mFI for measuring frailty. Frailty was significantly associated with increased in-hospital or 30-day mortality (pooled odds ratio [OR]: 1.93 [1.19; 3.11]), non-routine discharge (pooled OR: 2.44 [1.34; 4.44]), and AEs or complications (pooled OR: 2.00 [1.14; 3.50]). However, no significant relationship was found between frailty and LoS (pooled OR: 3.02 [0.86; 10.60]). Heterogeneity was observed across multiple factors, including age, injury level, frailty assessment tool, and spinal cord injury characteristics. In conclusion, although there is limited data concerning using frailty scales to predict short-term outcomes after TSI, the results showed that frailty status may be a predictor of in-hospital mortality, AEs, and unfavorable discharge destination.

A Retrospective Cohort Study to Evaluate Adding Biomarkers to the Risk Analysis Index of Frailty

IntroductionThe Risk Analysis Index (RAI) is a frailty assessment tool associated with adverse postoperative outcomes including 180 and 365-d mortality. However, the RAI has been criticized for only containing subjective inputs rather than including more objective components such as biomarkers. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the benefit of adding common biomarkers to the RAI using the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database. RAI plus body mass index (BMI), creatinine, hematocrit, and albumin were evaluated as individual and composite variables on 180-d postoperative mortality. ResultsAmong 480,731 noncardiac cases in VASQIP from 2010 to 2014, 324,320 (67%) met our inclusion criteria. Frail patients (RAI ≥30) made up to 13.0% of the sample. RAI demonstrated strong discrimination for 180-d mortality (c = 0.839 [0.836-0.843]). Discrimination significantly improved with the addition of Hematocrit (c = 0.862 [0.859-0.865]) and albumin (c = 0.870 [0.866-0.873]), but not for body mass index (BMI) or creatinine. However, calibration plots demonstrate that the improvement was primarily at high RAI values where the model overpredicts observed mortality. ConclusionsWhile RAI's ability to predict the risk of 180-d postoperative mortality improves with the addition of certain biomarkers, this only observed in patients classified as very frail (RAI >49). Because very frail patients have significantly elevated observed and predicted mortality, the improved discrimination is likely of limited clinical utility for a frailty screening tool.

Preoperative optimization: Physical and cognitive pre-habilitation and management of chronic medication.

Surgery is a significant stressor for older patient. Most are at higher risk of complications due to frailty and comorbidities. This article will review the impact of surgery on the older patient, perioperative risk assessment and stratification, prehabilitation, and specific screenings and interventions. Electronic searches of PubMed were conducted to identify relevant literature using the following search terms: prehabilitation, sarcopenia, osteosarcopenia, frailty, perioperative evaluation, and polypharmacy. Using the frailty phenotype allows for the early identification of geriatric syndromes and potential targets for interventions. However, it does not inform on potential cognitive impairment, which must be assessed separately. Prehabilitation, especially using multimodal interventions, aims to increase functional capacity during the preoperative period in anticipation of the upcoming stress of surgery and the metabolic cost of recovery. It comprises aerobic and resistance training, dietary interventions, psychological interventions, and cessation of adverse health behaviors. Addressing polypharmacy is also important during the perioperative period. Several frailty assessment tools exist, and special tests only take minutes to perform such as the gait speed and chair stand test. Early identification by surgeons leads to early referral to prehabilitation, which needs about four to six weeks to improve function. The decision to enroll patients in a prehabilitation program is based on the understanding of the needs to maintain a structured and personalized intervention taking into consideration the patient's health status, the type of surgery, and the state of the disease. Perioperative evaluation and prehabilitation for older adults are evolving fields, which are generating clinical and scientific interest. This article will review relevant topics to help clinicians adapt usual perioperative care to older patients' particular needs.

Frailty and heart failure: State-of-the-art review.

At least half of all patients with heart failure (HF) are affected by frailty, a syndrome that limits an individual ability to recover from acute stressors. While frailty affects up to 90% of patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, it is also seen in ~30-60% of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, with ~26% higher prevalence in women compared with men. The relationship between frailty and HF is bidirectional, with both conditions exacerbating the other. Frailty is further complicated by a higher prevalence of sarcopenia (by ~20%) in HF patients compared with patients without HF, which negatively affects outcomes. Several frailty assessment methods have been employed historically including the Fried frailty phenotype and Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale to classify HF patients based on the severity of frailty; however, a validated HF-specific frailty assessment tool does not currently exist. Frailty in HF is associated with a poor prognosis with a 1.5-fold to 2-fold higher risk of all-cause death and hospitalizations compared to non-frail patients. Frailty is also highly prevalent in patients with worsening HF, affecting >50% of patients hospitalized for HF. Such patients with multiple readmissions for decompensated HF have markedly poor outcomes compared to younger, non-frail cohorts, and it is hypothesized that it may be due to major physical and functional limitations that limit recovery from an acute episode of worsening HF, a care aspect that has not been addressed in HF guidelines. Frail patients are thought to confer less benefit from therapeutic interventions due to an increased risk of perceived harm, resulting in lower adherence to HF interventions, which may worsen outcomes. Multiple studies report that <40% of frail patients are on guideline-directed medical therapy for HF, of which most are on suboptimal doses of these medications. There is a lack of evidence generated from randomized trials in this incredibly vulnerable population, and most current practice is governed by post hoc analyses of trials, observational registry-based data and providers' clinical judgement. The current body of evidence suggests that the treatment effect of most guideline-based interventions, including medications, cardiac rehabilitation and device therapy, is consistent across all age groups and frailty subgroups and, in some cases, may be amplified in the older, more frail population. In this review, we discuss the characteristics, assessment tools, impact on prognosis and impact on therapeutic interventions of frailty in patients with HF.

Frailty knowledge, training and barriers to frailty management: A national cross-sectional survey of health professionals in Australia.

To understand Australian health professionals' perceptions of their knowledge and previous training about frailty, as well as barriers to frailty assessment and management in their practice. A cross-sectional online survey was developed and distributed to health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) engaged in clinical practice in Australia through convenience and snowball sampling techniques from March to May 2022. The survey consisted of five sections: frailty training and knowledge; confidence in recognising and managing adults with frailty; the importance and relevance of frailty; barriers to assessing and managing frailty in practice; and interest in further frailty training. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. The survey was taken by 736 health professionals. Less than half of respondents (44%, 321/733) reported receiving any training on frailty, with 14% (105/733) receiving training specifically focussed on frailty. Most respondents (78%, 556/712) reported 'good' or 'fair' understanding of frailty. The majority (64%, 448/694) reported being 'fairly' or 'somewhat' confident with identifying frailty. Almost all respondents (>90%) recognised frailty as having an important impact on outcomes and believed that there are beneficial interventions for frailty. Commonly reported barriers to frailty assessment in practice included 'lack of defined protocol for managing frailty' and 'lack of consensus about which frailty assessment tool to use'. Most respondents (88%, 521/595) were interested in receiving further education on frailty, with a high preference for online training. The findings suggest frailty is important to health professionals in Australia, and there is a need for and interest in further frailty education.

Using voice biomarkers for frailty classification.

Clinicians use the patient's voice intuitively to evaluate general health and frailty. Voice is an emerging health indicator but has been scarcely studied in the context of frailty. This study explored voice parameters as possible predictors of frailty in older adults. Fifty-three participants over 70years old were recruited from rehabilitation wards at a tertiary medical center. Participants' frailty was assessed using Rockwood frailty index and they were classified as most-frail (n = 33, 68%) or less-frail (n = 20, 32%). Participants were recorded counting from 1 to 10 and backwards using a smartphone recording application. The following voice biomarkers were derived: peak and average volume, peak/average volume ratio, pauses' total length, and pause length standard deviation. The most-frail group had a higher peak volume/average volume ratio (p = 0.03) and greater variance in lengths of pauses between speech segments (p = 0.002). These parameters indicate greater speech irregularity in the most-frail, compared to the less-frail. The most-frail group also had a longer total duration of pauses (p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was found in peak and average volume (p = 0.75 and 0.39). Most-frail participants' speech had different characteristics, compared to participants in the less-frail group. This is a first step to developing an AI-based frailty assessment tool that can assist in identifying our most vulnerable patients.

Frailty assessment of older patients in the emergency department.

An ageing population is leading to an increase in patients attending emergency departments (EDs) with comorbidities and age-related syndromes such as frailty. Frailty is a clinical syndrome defined as an increased vulnerability to age-related or disease-related insults in older adults due to diminishing physiological reserves. It also places increased demands on staff and hospital services. Screening for frailty early in the care pathway ensures goal-directed and timely care. This article provides an overview of frailty and its assessment in older people presenting to the ED. It discusses the most commonly used frailty assessment tool in the ED, the Clinical Frailty Scale, and identifies that the results of frailty assessment should be used to initiate appropriate individualised care in older patients.

Nutrition, frailty assessment, and interventions for the liver transplant candidate.

Nutrition, frailty assessment, and interventions for the liver transplant candidate.

The Fine Line Between Simplicity and Oversimplification: Comparing the Risk Analysis Index and 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index as Frailty Assessment Tools.

The Fine Line Between Simplicity and Oversimplification: Comparing the Risk Analysis Index and 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index as Frailty Assessment Tools.

#5397 FRAILTY ASSESSMENT TOOLS, SURVIVAL TIME AND TIME TO INITIATE DIALYSIS IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE

Abstract Background and Aims Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients with frailty have been shown to have a shorter survival time compared to non-frail individuals. Additionally, frailty has been linked to earlier initiation of dialysis among CKD patients. Despite the availability of over 50 frailty assessment tools in the literature, few have been applied in studies of older adults with CKD. There is a need for a comprehensive analysis of different frailty tools to identify the most accurate tools that could predict survival time and time to start dialysis in older adults with CKD. The present study compares four commonly used assessment tools of frailty from different categories (self-reporting tools, clinical judgment tools and complex instruments) regarding their association with survival time and time to start dialysis. Method Two hundred forty patients with biochemical evidence of CKD Stages 4–5 were included in this prospective cohort study. The inclusion criteria included patients 65 years old or more with two consecutive measurements of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) &amp;lt;60 mL/min/1.73 m2 separated by more than three months, while exclusion criteria included dialysis dependence, history of kidney transplantation, recent acute kidney injury, initial visit with the provider, amputation, or cerebrovascular accident. The four frailty assessment tools used in the study were Prisma-7 and FRAIL Scale, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and Frailty Phenotype (FP). Patients were followed-up for 36 months for death events or dialysis initiation. Results The study population (240 patients) comprised 46% male patients with a mean age of 73.8 ± 6.6 years. Approximately 25% of patients were considered frail using the FRAIL scale, 69% using Prisma-7, and almost 40% using CFS and FP. Except for Prisma-7, “frail” patients, as determined by the FRAIL, CFS, and FP scores (Fig. 1), had significantly shorter survival times, with a mean survival of 24.9 months (Log-rank p &amp;lt;0.001), 27.3 months (Log-rank p = 0.041), and 26.6 months (Log-rank p = 0.004) respectively. No significant differences were observed in time to dialysis initiation when comparing frail and non-frail patients using any of the frailty assessment tools (Table 1). Conclusion The findings suggest that the frailty scores derived from the FRAIL, CFS, and FP tools are better predictors of survival time in frail elderly patients with CKD, while further research is required to determine the most appropriate frailty tool to predict the time to start dialysis in this population.

#4146 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF ASSESSING AND MANAGING OLDER PATIENTS WITH ANCA ASSOCIATED VASCULITIS

Abstract Background and Aims ANCA associated vasculitis (AAV) has a peak incidence in 65 -74 yr olds. As a result, it affects an ageing population who are vulnerable to co-morbidities, polypharmacy and frailty. Due to the high burden of morbidity and mortality in these patients, it is increasingly recognised that individualised management is needed. Whilst current immunotherapies are effective, there remains caution in treating older patients due to the potential risks. Yet despite AAV being a condition that predominantly affects older people, few studies have looked specifically at the benefit of treating AAV in such age groups, or at frailty assessments tools to guide treatment. Method We aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in older AAV patients, as well as frailty assessment tools to aid prognostication and management. A cohort study evaluating outcomes of induction immunosuppression in patients ≥75yrs was constructed from 2 centres, with subsequent meta-analysis of published data [1]. In addition, studies identifying frail patients, who may be at risk of adverse outcomes, were carried out using the quantitative tools; Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) [2] and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Primary outcomes were mortality and end stage kidney disease (ESKD). The HFRS was calculated using hospital coding data from any hospital admissions between a patient's AAV diagnosis to 2yr follow up. Patients were categorized into low, intermediate and high HFRS groups. CFS scores at presentation were documented prospectively and then repeated a minimum of 6 weeks from diagnosis. A CFS score of ≥5 was used to categorise frailty. Differences in the scores were assessed and compared to clinical outcomes. Results Retrospective analysis of our AAV cohort aged ≥75 yrs demonstrated that induction immunosuppression was associated with a significant reduction in the 2yr mortality risk [HR 0.29 (95% CI 0.09–0.93)]. Following systematic review, with a study population of 290 patients, the pooled HR by meta-analysis confirmed a significant reduction in the risk of death with induction treatment [HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.16 - 0.57)]. Treated patients had a lower rate of ESKD, but this was not statistically significant [HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.15 – 3.35)]. Looking separately at frailty assessments, mortality and ESKD were assessed according to HFRS and CFS. Thirty-four patients with AAV aged ≥75 yrs were assessed using HFRS and categorised into the low (n = 18), intermediate (n = 13) and high (n = 3) HFRS groups. All patients in the high HFRS groups had ≥1 episodes of hospitalization after diagnosis of AAV. However, there was no difference in mortality or duration of hospitalisation between the 3 categories. Forty-one patients with AAV aged ≥65yrs were assessed using the CFS. The median CFS at diagnosis and follow-up was 4. There was no significant interval change in CFS (P = 0.16) suggesting that patients did not become frailer. Instead, there was a tendency towards improved frailty scores at reassessment (n = 17, 43%), with some patients going from a CFS of 6 (moderately frail) to 3 (managing well). There was no significant difference in ESKD between those categorised as frail and non-frail (P = 1.0), although crude mortality was higher among those initially categorised as frail (P = 0.03). Conclusion Our research shows that older patients with AAV benefit from standard remission-induction therapy and those treated had favourable mortality outcomes compared to those who were not. Furthermore, frailty assessment tools do not correlate clearly with clinical outcomes. Whilst there is evidence to support the use of HFRS and CFS in a many diseases, its utility in determining frailty and potential susceptibility to adverse effects of therapy in patients with multifaceted, autoimmune inflammatory disease remains limited. Patients may present ‘frail’ as a result of significant disease burden, which has the potential to improve with appropriate treatment. We suggest that age alone and frailty at assessment should not be a limiting factor when considering treatment and prospective studies of this population are needed.

Frailty Is a Risk Factor for Falls in the Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There is little evidence in the literature about the relationship between frailty and falls in older adults. Our objective was to explore the relationship between frailty and falls, and to analyze the effect factors (e.g., gender, different frailty assessment tools, areas, level of national economic development, and year of publication) of the association between frailty and falls among older adults. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Cohort studies that evaluated the association between frailty and falls in the older adults were included. We excluded any literature outside of cohort studies. We did a systematic literature search of English databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and SciElO, as well as the Chinese databases CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP from 2001 until October 2022. The eligible studies were evaluated for potential bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of study quality were each conducted by two investigators. In Stata/MP 17.0 software, we calculated pooled estimates of the prevalence of falls by using a random-effects model, Subgroup analysis was conducted based on gender, different frailty assessment tools, areas, level of economic development, and year of publication. The results are presented using a forest plot. Twenty-nine studies were included in this meta-analysis and a total of 1,093,270 participants aged 65 years and above were enrolled. Among the older adults, frailty was significantly associated with a higher risk for falls, compared with those without frailty (combined RR-relative risk = 1.48, 95% CI-confidence interval: 1.27-1.73, I2=98.9%). In addition, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that men had a higher risk for falls than women among the older adults with frailty (RR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.18-3.2 versus RR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.24-1.67). Subgroup analysis by different frailty assessment tools revealed an increased risk of falls in older adults with frailty when assessed using the Frailty Phenotype (combined RR 1.32, 95%CI: 1.17-1.48), FRAIL score (combined RR 1.82, 95%CI: 1.36-2.43), and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures index (combined RR 1.54, 95%CI: 1.10-2.16). Furthermore, subgroup analysis by areas and level of national economic development found the highest fall risk in Oceania (combined RR 2.35, 95%CI: 2.28-2.43) and the lowest in Europe (combined RR 1.20, 95%CI: 1.05-1.38). Developed countries exhibited a lower fall risk compared to developing countries (combined RR 1.44, 95%CI: 1.21-1.71). Analysis by year of publication showed the highest fall risk between 2013-2019 (combined RR 1.79, 95%CI: 1.45-2.20) and the lowest between 2001-2013 (combined RR 1.21, 95%CI: 1.13-1.29). Frailty represents a significant risk factor for falls in older adults, with the degree of risk varying according to the different frailty assessment tools employed, and notably highest when using the FRAIL scale. Additionally, factors such as gender, areas, level of national economic development, and healthcare managers' understanding of frailty may all impact the correlation between frailty and falls. Thus, it's imperative to select suitable frailty diagnostic tools tailored to the specific characteristics of the population in question. This, in turn, facilitates the accurate identification of frailty in older adults and informs the development of appropriate preventive and therapeutic strategies to mitigate fall risk.

Cross-cultural Adaptation of Oral and Maxillofacial Frailty Assessment Tools for Geriatric Population of Kerala.

The aim of this study is to translate the oral and maxillofacial frailty index (OMFI) into Malayalam, culturally adapt it, and test its reliability and validity in the Kerala geriatric population. OMFI was translated, culturally adapted, and validated in Malayalam using a methodological and cross-sectional study design. The Malayalam version of OMFI underwent full linguistic validation and was tested on 200 patients at Amritakripa Hospital in Kalpetta. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used for exploratory factor analysis, and Cronbach's alpha was used to assess reliability. Two-hundred patients were recruited in this study. Participants ranged in age from 60 to 83 years; mean age was 68 years (SD: 15.21). In total 55.5% were male participants, and 30.5% were belonging to upper middle class as per the Kuppuswami scale. Only 12% of the participants were living alone. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was found to be 0.583, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant with a Chi-square test value of 1003.469. A principal axis factor analysis conducted on 20 items with orthogonal rotation (varimax). OMFI Malayalam version (5 items) had a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.751). Item-total correlations were reviewed for the items of OMFI. The OMFI Malayalam version demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and can be used to screen the oral frailty of the geriatric population in Kerala. As Kerala is having highest geriatric population in India, we need to assess the oral frailty burden of Kerala. This study provided the first measure to assess the oral frailty in elderly in Kerala.

Reliability and validity of a frailty assessment tool in specialized burn care, a retrospective multicentre cohort study

BackgroundFrailty is a predictor of adverse outcomes in elderly patients. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is an often-used frailty assessment instrument. However, the CFS’s reliability and validity in patients with burn injuries are unknown. This study aimed to assess the CFS’s inter-rater reliability and validity (predictive validity, known group validity and convergent validity) in patients with burn injuries treated to specialized burn care. MethodsA retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 50 years with burn injuries, with a primary admission in 2015–2018, were included. Based on information in the electronic patient files, a research team member scored the CFS retrospectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Krippendorff’s α. Validity was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Patients with a CFS ≥ 5 were considered frail. ResultsIn total, 540 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.8 years (SD 11.5) and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) burned of 8.5%. The CFS was used to assess frailty in 540 patients and the reliability of the CFS was scored for 212 patients. Mean CFS was 3.4(SD 2.0). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, Krippendorff’s α 0.69 (95%CI 0.62–0.74). A positive frailty screening was predictive of a non-home discharge location (OR 3.57, 95%CI 2.16–5.93), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR 1.06–8.77), and a higher mortality rate within 12 months after discharge (OR 4.61, 95%CI 1.99–10.65) after adjustment for age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. Frail patients were more likely to be older (for<70 vs. ≥70 years odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.95–4.25) and their comorbidities were more severe (ASA ≥3 vs 1–2 OR 6.43, 95%CI 4.26–9.70) (known group validity). The CFS was significantly related (rSpearman=0.55) to the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) frailty screening, reflecting a fair-good correlation between the CFS and DSMS frailty screening outcomes. ConclusionThe Clinical Frailty scale is reliable and has shown its validity, including its association with adverse outcomes in patients with burn injury admitted to specialized burn care. Early frailty assessment with the CFS must be considered, to optimize early recognition and treatment of frailty.

Relationship between lower urinary tract symptoms and frailty.

To elucidate the relationship between frailty and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). We longitudinally evaluated the temporal changes and the relationships between frailty and LUTS in 247 community-dwelling adults (45 years or older) at baseline and at a 5-year follow-up. We used the Fried phenotype (phenotype-based frailty), 5-item modified frailty index (5i-mFI; comorbidity-based frailty), and frailty discriminant score (comprehensive frailty assessment) to evaluate frailty. LUTS were evaluated using the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS). We analyzed 247 participants with a median age of 60 years. The median IPSS and OABSS were significantly increased over the 5 years. The proportion of frail individuals did not increase significantly over the 5 years. Of the three frailty assessment tools, the 5i-mFI score significantly increased between 2014 and 2019. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that the 5i-mFI score was significantly associated with the severity of LUTS in 2014 to 5i-mFI in 2019 but not with 5i-mFI in 2014 to the severity of LUTS in 2019. The effect of LUTS on frailty might be greater than the effect of frailty on LUTS. Further large-scale studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between LUTS and frailty.

426 Utility of the Fried Phenotype as a Frailty Assessment Tool in Predicting Post-Operative Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Spine Surgery Patients

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose surgical patients to increased peri-operative morbidity. The Fried phenotype is a clinical measure of frailty and categorizes patients’ frailty based on grip strength, walking speed, unintentional weight loss, low physical activity, and exhaustion. It has been validated in non-spine surgical populations and has been shown to be correlated with poor postoperative outcomes and longer hospital lengths of stay (LOS); it has not yet been validated in patients undergoing spine surgery. Other assessment tools, including the Modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are calculated based on comorbidities. The mFI-11 has previously been studied in spine patients - a higher mFI-11 score has been associated with a higher risk of post-operative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Patients &gt;65 years of age who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease since 2015 were included. Data for the Fried phenotype, mFI-11, CCI, and outcomes were gathered for each patient. ROC curves were generated, and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: 248 patients (128 females; 120 males) with an average age of 71.8 years were included. The median Fried score was 1, median CCI was 1, and median mFI-11 was 0.18. The median LOS was 4 days, with 11 30-day re-admissions. Fried phenotype was found to be the best predictor of an extended LOS and of a non-home discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The Fried phenotype is now shown to be a validated measure of frailty in the spine population. Because it relies on categories that are impacted by the patient's functional condition (instead of the comorbidity burden), it has profound implications for optimizing patients through pre-habilitation prior to elective surgery.

Measurement of Frailty

Frailty is a clinical syndrome observed in older adults that associates with poor health outcomes. Despite the attempt to standardize its definition and clinical features, the complexity and the multiplicity of the physiologic dysregulations observed in frailty have led to the development of innumerous assessment tools. Herein, we highlight frequently used assessment tools for frailty describing the criteria, pros and cons regarding clinical feasibility, reliability, and validity as well as risk predictability. We further compare the 2 well-established landmark frailty assessment tools, the Physical Frailty Phenotype and the Frailty Index, in an attempt to unravel how such distinct methodologies prevail as the most commonly used clinical tools to prevent adverse outcomes worldwide.