Aims and objectives: To examine the predictive properties of the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program for the screening of frail hospitalised older patients (VMS) and to compare these with the more extensive Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP). Background: Screening of older patients during admission may help to detect frailty and underlying geriatric conditions. The VMS screening assesses patients on four domains (i.e. functional decline, delirium risk, fall risk and nutrition). The 15-item MFST-HP assesses patients on three domains of frailty (physical, social and psychological). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Data of 2,573 hospitalised patients (70+) admitted in 2013 were included, and relative risks, sensitivity and specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of the two tools were calculated for discharge destination, readmissions and mortality. The data were derived from the patients nursing files. A STARD checklist was completed. Results: Different proportions of frail patients were identified by means of both tools: 1,369 (53.2%) based on the VMS and 414 (16.1%) based on the MFST-HP. The specificity was low for the VMS, and the sensitivity was low for the MFST-HP. The overall AUC for the VMS varied from 0.50 to 0.76 and from 0.49 to 0.69 for the MFST-HP. Conclusion: The predictive properties of the VMS and the more extended MFST-HP on the screening of frailty among older hospitalised patients are poor to moderate and not very promising. Relevance to clinical practice: The VMS labels a high proportion of older patients as potentially frail, while the MFST-HP labels over 80% as nonfrail. An extended tool did not increase the predictive ability of the VMS. However, information derived from the individual items of the screening tools may help nurses in daily practice to intervene on potential geriatric risks such as delirium risk or fall risk.
DOCUMENT
The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3±6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specifcity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specifcity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.
DOCUMENT
Background: Frailty can have a negative influence on outcomes in elderly patients after burn injuries. The Dutch hospitals have used a four-domain frailty screening instrument from the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) since 2012. However, its feasibility and validity have hardly been studied. We aim to assess the feasibility and validity of frailty screening in specialized burn care. Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted in all Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 70, with a primary admission between 2012-2018, were included. Data were derived from electronic patient files. Results: In total, 515 patients were included. Frailty screening was complete in 39.6% and partially complete in 23.9%. Determinants for a complete screening were admission after 2015 (OR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.42-3.25) and lower percentage TBSA burned (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-029). In all completely screened patients, 49.9% were at risk of frailty. At risk patients were older, had more comorbidities (known group validity), a longer length of stay, and more frequently a non-home discharge (predictive validity). Conclusion: Frailty screening in specialized burn care is feasible and was conducted in 63.5% of admitted patients. In total, 44% of screened patients were at risk of frailty. Validity of frailty screening was confirmed. Frailty screening can contribute to optimal specialized burn care.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background One of the most problematic expression of ageing is frailty, and an approach based on its early identification is mandatory. The Sunfrail-tool (ST), a 9-item questionnaire, is a promising instrument for screening frailty. Aims • To assess the diagnostic accuracy and the construct validity between the ST and a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), composed by six tests representative of the bio-psycho-social model of frailty; • To verify the discriminating power of five key-questions of the ST; • To investigate the role of the ST in a clinical-pathway of falls’ prevention. Methods In this retrospective study, we enrolled 235 patients from the Frailty-Multimorbidity Lab of the University-Hospital of Parma. The STs’ answers were obtained from the patient’s clinical information. A patient was considered frail if at least one of the CGAs’ tests resulted positive. Results The ST was associated with the CGA’s judgement with an Area Under the Curve of 0.691 (CI 95%: 0.591–0.791). Each CGA’s test was associated with the ST total score. The five key-question showed a potential discriminating power in the CGA’s tests of the corresponding domains. The fall-related question of the ST was significantly associated with the Short Physical Performance Battery total score (OR: 0.839, CI 95%: 0.766–0.918), a proxy of the risk of falling. Discussion The results suggest that the ST can capture the complexity of frailty. The ST showed a good discriminating power, and it can guide a second-level assessment to key frailty domains and/or clinical pathways. Conclusions The ST is a valid and easy-to-use instrument for the screening of frailty.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Introduction: More and more researchers are convinced that frailty should refer not only to physical limitations but also to psychological and social limitations that older people may have. Such a broad, or multidimensional, definition of frailty fits better with nursing, in which a holistic view of human beings, and thus their total functioning, is the starting point. Purpose: In this article, which should be considered a Practice Update, we aim at emphasizing the importance of the inclusion of other domains of human functioning in the definition and measurement of frailty. In addition, we provide a description of how district nurses view frailty in older people. Finally, we present interventions that nurses can perform to prevent or delay frailty or its adverse outcomes. We present, in particular, results from studies in which the Tilburg Frailty Indicator, a multidimensional frailty instrument, was used. Conclusion: The importance of a multidimensional assessment of frailty was demonstrated by usually satisfactory results concerning adverse outcomes of mortality, disability, an increase in healthcare utilization, and lower quality of life. Not many studies have been performed on nurses’ opinions about frailty. Starting from a multidimensional definition of frailty, encompassing physical, psychological, and social domains, nurses are able to assess and diagnose frailty and conduct a variety of interventions to prevent or reduce frailty and its adverse effects. Because nurses come into frequent contact with frail older people, we recommend future studies on opinions of nurses about frailty (e.g., screening, prevention, and addressing).
DOCUMENT
Background: The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues’ description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried’s frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people. Methods: There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1–2) and frail (score 3–5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains. Results: 63.2 % of the participants was non-frail, 28.1 % pre-frail and 8.7 % frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9 %, pre-frail 23.8 %, frail 60.6 %, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7. Conclusion: When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Existing frailty models have enhanced research and practice; however, none of the models accounts for the perspective of older adults upon defining and operationalizing frailty. We aim to propose a mixed conceptual model that builds on the integral model while accounting for older adults’ perceptions and lived experiences of frailty. We conducted a traditional literature review to address frailty attributes, risk factors, consequences, perceptions, and lived experiences of older adults with frailty. Frailty attributes are vulnerability/susceptibility, aging, dynamic, complex, physical, psychological, and social. Frailty perceptions and lived experience themes/subthemes are refusing frailty labeling, being labeled “by others” as compared to “self-labeling”, from the perception of being frail towards acting as being frail, positive self-image, skepticism about frailty screening, communicating the term “frail”, and negative and positive impacts and experiences of frailty. Frailty risk factors are classified into socio-demographic, biological, physical, psychological/cognitive, behavioral, and situational/environmental factors. The consequences of frailty affect the individual, the caregiver/family, the healthcare sector, and society. The mixed conceptual model of frailty consists of interacting risk factors, interacting attributes surrounded by the older adult’s perception and lived experience, and interacting consequences at multiple levels. The mixed conceptual model provides a lens to qualify frailty in addition to quantifying it.
DOCUMENT
Objective: The Tilburg Frailty Instrument (TFI) is an instrument for assessing frailty in community-dwelling older people. Since its development, many studies have been carried out examining the psychometric properties. The aim of this study was to provide a review of the main findings with regard to the reliability and validity of the TFI. Methods: We conducted a literature search in the PubMed and CINAHL databases on May 30, 2020. An inclusion criterion was the use of the entire TFI, part B, referring to the 15 components. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. Results: In total, 27 studies reported about the psychometric properties of the TFI. By far, most of the studies (n = 25) were focused on community-dwelling older people. Many studies showed that the internal consistency and test–retest reliability are good, which also applies for the criterion and construct validity. In many studies, adverse outcomes of interest were disability, increased health-care utilization, lower quality of life, and mortality. Regarding disability, studies predominantly show results that are excellent, with an area under the curve (AUC) >0.80. In addition, the TFI showed good associations with lower quality of life and the findings concerning mortality were at least acceptable. However, the association of the TFI with some indicators of health-care utilization can be indicated as poor (eg, visits to a general practitioner, hospitalization). Conclusion: Since population aging is occurring all over the world, it is important that the TFI is available and well known that it is a user-friendly instrument for assessing frailty and its psychometric properties being qualified as good. The findings of this assessment can support health-care professionals in selecting interventions to reduce frailty and delay its adverse outcomes, such as disability and lower quality of life.
DOCUMENT
Background: Due to differences in the definition of frailty, many different screening instruments have been developed. However, the predictive validity of these instruments among community-dwelling older people remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate whether combined (i.e. sequential or parallel) use of available frailty instruments improves the predictive power of dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL), mortality and hospitalization. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study with two-year followup was conducted among pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands. Measurements: Four combinations of two highly specific frailty instruments (Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index) and two highly sensitive instruments (Tilburg Frailty Indicator, Groningen Frailty Indicator) were investigated. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for all single instruments as well as for the four combinations, sequential and parallel. Results: 2,420 individuals participated (mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 60.5% female) in our study. Sequential use increased the levels of specificity, as expected, whereas the PPV hardly increased. Parallel use increased the levels of sensitivity, although the NPV hardly increased. Conclusions: Applying two frailty instruments sequential or parallel might not be a solution for achieving better predictions of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Our results show that the combination of different screening instruments does not improve predictive validity. However, as this is one of the first studies to investigate the combined use of screening instruments, we recommend further exploration of other combinations of instruments among other study populations.
DOCUMENT
Bij de richtlijn horen 1) een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing en 2) een samenvattingskaart. Deze richtlijn beoogt ggz-professionals - in het bijzonder verpleegkundigen - te ondersteunen bij de somatische screening op gezondheidsproblemen bij mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening, en ondersteuning te bieden bij de planning en uitvoering van vervolgactiviteiten voor preventie en tijdige diagnostiek en behandeling van somatische problemen. Gerichte leefstijlinterventies kunnen risicofactoren voor bepaalde somatische aandoeningen gunstig beïnvloeden. De richtlijn richt zich op volwassen patiënten (18-65 jaar) met een ernstige psychische aandoening of een verhoogd risico. De aanbevelingen zijn ook toepasbaar voor de POH-ggz. Medeauteurs: Marieke van Piere, Maarten Bak, Merlijn Bakkenes, Digna van der Kellen, Sonja van Hamersveld, Ronald van Gool, Katie Dermout, Titia Feldmann, Anneriek Risseeuw, Anneke Wijtsma-van der Kolk, Ingrid van Vuuren, Matthijs Rümke, Evelyn Sloots-Jongen, Paul de Heij, Richard Starmans, Cilia Daatselaar, Christine van Veen en Marleen Hermens (Werkgroep Richtlijnontwikkeling Algemene somatische screening & Leefstijl)
MULTIFILE
