E W Kaehr1, L C Pape, T K Malmstrom, J E Morley. 1. Ellen W. Kaehr, M.D. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, 1402 South Grad Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63104, email kaehrew@slu.edu, telephone 314-977-8462, fax 314-771-8575.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To investigate the predictive validity of the short, simple FRAIL-NH frailty screening tool in the long term care population and to then compare the predictive validity with the frailty index (FI) for 6-month adverse health outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective study using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 and chart review from June-December 2014. SETTING: Two Long Term Care Facilities in Saint Louis, MO. PARTICIPANTS: 270 patients ages ≥ 65 years old residing in long term care. MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured using the FRAIL-NH and Frailty Index (FI) criteria. Adverse outcomes measured at 6-month follow-up included falls, hospitalizations, and hospice enrollment/mortality. RESULTS: Based on screening tool used frailty prevalence was 48.7% for FRAIL-NH and 30.3% for FI. The FRAIL-NH pre-frail (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]=2.62; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=1.25-5.54; p=0.11) classification was associated with 6 month risk of falling and mortality/hospice enrollment was associated with the frail classification, AOR=3.96 (1.44-10.87, p=0.007). Combining the pre-frail and frail categories both measures predicted 6 month mortality with the FRAIL-NH being the strongest predictor (AOR=3.36; 95%CI=1.26-8.98; p=0.016) and the FI was a more modest predictor with an AOR of 2.28; 95%CI=1.01-5.15; p=0.047. When directly comparing the FRAIL-NH to the FI, the FRAIL-NH pre-frail were at increased risk of falling, AOR=2.42 (1.11-5.92, p=0.027) and the FRAIL-NH frail were at increased risk of hospice enrollment/death, OR=3.25 (1.04- 10.86) p=0.044. CONCLUSION: In comparison to the FI, the FRAIL-NH preformed just as well at screening for frailty and was a slightly better predictor of adverse outcomes. The FRAIL-NH is a brief, easy-to-administer frailty screening tool appropriate for long term care patients and predicts increased risk of falls in the pre-frail and mortality/hospice enrollment in the frail.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To investigate the predictive validity of the short, simple FRAIL-NH frailty screening tool in the long term care population and to then compare the predictive validity with the frailty index (FI) for 6-month adverse health outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective study using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 and chart review from June-December 2014. SETTING: Two Long Term Care Facilities in Saint Louis, MO. PARTICIPANTS: 270 patients ages ≥ 65 years old residing in long term care. MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured using the FRAIL-NH and Frailty Index (FI) criteria. Adverse outcomes measured at 6-month follow-up included falls, hospitalizations, and hospice enrollment/mortality. RESULTS: Based on screening tool used frailty prevalence was 48.7% for FRAIL-NH and 30.3% for FI. The FRAIL-NH pre-frail (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]=2.62; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=1.25-5.54; p=0.11) classification was associated with 6 month risk of falling and mortality/hospice enrollment was associated with the frail classification, AOR=3.96 (1.44-10.87, p=0.007). Combining the pre-frail and frail categories both measures predicted 6 month mortality with the FRAIL-NH being the strongest predictor (AOR=3.36; 95%CI=1.26-8.98; p=0.016) and the FI was a more modest predictor with an AOR of 2.28; 95%CI=1.01-5.15; p=0.047. When directly comparing the FRAIL-NH to the FI, the FRAIL-NH pre-frail were at increased risk of falling, AOR=2.42 (1.11-5.92, p=0.027) and the FRAIL-NH frail were at increased risk of hospice enrollment/death, OR=3.25 (1.04- 10.86) p=0.044. CONCLUSION: In comparison to the FI, the FRAIL-NH preformed just as well at screening for frailty and was a slightly better predictor of adverse outcomes. The FRAIL-NH is a brief, easy-to-administer frailty screening tool appropriate for long term care patients and predicts increased risk of falls in the pre-frail and mortality/hospice enrollment in the frail.
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Tze Pin Ng; Liang Feng; Ma Shwe Zin Nyunt; Lei Feng; Mathew Niti; Boon Yeow Tan; Gribson Chan; Sue Anne Khoo; Sue Mei Chan; Philip Yap; Keng Bee Yap Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Julia González-Vaca; Marisa de la Rica-Escuín; Marta Silva-Iglesias; María Dolores Arjonilla-García; Rosana Varela-Pérez; José Luis Oliver-Carbonell; Pedro Abizanda Journal: Maturitas Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Samuel D Searle; Arnold Mitnitski; Evelyne A Gahbauer; Thomas M Gill; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Michael A Campitelli; Susan E Bronskill; David B Hogan; Christina Diong; Joseph E Amuah; Sudeep Gill; Dallas Seitz; Kednapa Thavorn; Walter P Wodchis; Colleen J Maxwell Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.921