Tracy A Comans1, Nancye M Peel2, Ruth E Hubbard3, Andrew D Mulligan2, Leonard C Gray4, Paul A Scuffham5. 1. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, University Drive Meadowbrook, Brisbane, Queensland 4131, Australia Metro North Hospital and Health Service District-Allied Health, The Prince Charles Hospital Rode Road Chermside, Brisbane, Queensland 4032, Australia. 2. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4102, Australia. 3. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4102, Australia The University of Queensland School of Medicine-Geriatric Medicine, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia. 4. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia. 5. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, University Drive Meadowbrook, Brisbane, Queensland 4131, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: older people are high users of healthcare resources. The frailty index can predict negative health outcomes; however, the amount of extra resources required has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: to quantify the impact of frailty on healthcare expenditure and resource utilisation in a patient cohort who entered a community-based post-acute program and compare this to a cohort entering residential care. METHODS: the interRAI home care assessment was used to construct a frailty index in three frailty levels. Costs and resource use were collected alongside a prospective observational cohort study of patients. A generalized linear model was constructed to estimate the additional cost of frailty and the cost of alternative residential care for those with high frailty. RESULTS: participants (n = 272) had an average age of 79, frailty levels were low in 20%, intermediate in 50% and high in 30% of the cohort. Having an intermediate or high level of frailty increased the likelihood of re-hospitalisation and was associated with 22 and 43% higher healthcare costs over 6 months compared with low frailty. It was less costly to remain living at home than enter residential care unless >62% of subsequent hospitalisations in 6 months could be prevented. CONCLUSIONS: the frailty index can potentially be used as a tool to estimate the increase in healthcare resources required for different levels of frailty. This information may be useful for quantifying the amount to invest in programs to reduce frailty in the community.
BACKGROUND: older people are high users of healthcare resources. The frailty index can predict negative health outcomes; however, the amount of extra resources required has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: to quantify the impact of frailty on healthcare expenditure and resource utilisation in a patient cohort who entered a community-based post-acute program and compare this to a cohort entering residential care. METHODS: the interRAI home care assessment was used to construct a frailty index in three frailty levels. Costs and resource use were collected alongside a prospective observational cohort study of patients. A generalized linear model was constructed to estimate the additional cost of frailty and the cost of alternative residential care for those with high frailty. RESULTS:participants (n = 272) had an average age of 79, frailty levels were low in 20%, intermediate in 50% and high in 30% of the cohort. Having an intermediate or high level of frailty increased the likelihood of re-hospitalisation and was associated with 22 and 43% higher healthcare costs over 6 months compared with low frailty. It was less costly to remain living at home than enter residential care unless >62% of subsequent hospitalisations in 6 months could be prevented. CONCLUSIONS: the frailty index can potentially be used as a tool to estimate the increase in healthcare resources required for different levels of frailty. This information may be useful for quantifying the amount to invest in programs to reduce frailty in the community.
Authors: Sara E Espinoza; Nicolas Musi; Chen-Pin Wang; Joel Michalek; Beverly Orsak; Terry Romo; Becky Powers; Alice Conde; Melody Moris; Darcy Bair-Kelps; Yan Li; Vinutha Ganapathy; Tyson E Jergensen; Lauri C Kelly; Rozmin Jiwani Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Rebecca S Crow; Matthew C Lohman; Alexander J Titus; Martha L Bruce; Todd A Mackenzie; Stephen J Bartels; John A Batsis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Olga Theou; Alexandra M van der Valk; Judith Godin; Melissa K Andrew; Janet E McElhaney; Shelly A McNeil; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Lewis A Lipsitz; Kenneth Rockwood; Jerry Avorn Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: R S Crow; M C Lohman; A J Titus; S B Cook; M L Bruce; T A Mackenzie; S J Bartels; J A Batsis Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Giorgos K Sakellariou; Adam P Lightfoot; Kate E Earl; Martin Stofanko; Brian McDonagh Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 12.910