Debra Eagles1,2, Jeffrey J Perry2, Marie-Josée Sirois1, Eddy Lang3, Raoul Daoust4, Jacques Lee5, Lauren Griffith6, Laura Wilding2, Xavier Neveu7, Marcel Emond1. 1. Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Alberta Health Science Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Hôpital du Sacre-Coeur de Montreal, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 5. Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. Research Center, CHU de Québec, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
Background: there is no standardised test for assessing mobility in the Emergency Department (ED). Objective: we wished to evaluate the relationship between the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and frailty, functional decline and falls in community dwelling elders that present to the ED following minor trauma. Methods: this was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted at eight Canadian hospitals. Evaluations included: TUG; Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Frailty Index; Older American Resources and Service Functional Scale; and self-reported falls. Of note, 3- and 6-month follow-up was conducted. Generalised linear model with log-binomial distribution was utilised. Relative risks (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. Results: TUG scores were available for 911/2918 patients, mean age 76.2 (SD 7.8) and 57.9% female. There was an association between TUG scores and frailty (P < 0.05) and functional decline at 3 (P < 0.05) and 6 (P < 0.05) months but not self-reported falls. For TUG scores 10-19 seconds, 20-29 seconds and ≥30 seconds, respectively: (i) frailty RR (95% CI): 1.8 (1.3-2.4), 3.0 (2.2-4.2) and 3.7 (2.6-5.1); (ii) functional decline RR (95% CI): 2.7 (1.1-6.4), 5.5 (2.1-14.3) and 8.9 (3.0-25.8); (iii) falls RR (95% CI): 0.9 (0.5-1.5), 1.3 (0.6-2.5) and 1.1 (0.4-3.5). Conclusion: in community dwelling elders presenting to the ED following minor trauma, TUG scores were associated with frailty and strongly associated with functional decline at 3 and 6 months post injury. TUG scores were not associated with self-reported falls. Use of the TUG in the ED will help identify frail patients at risk of functional decline.
Background: there is no standardised test for assessing mobility in the Emergency Department (ED). Objective: we wished to evaluate the relationship between the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and frailty, functional decline and falls in community dwelling elders that present to the ED following minor trauma. Methods: this was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted at eight Canadian hospitals. Evaluations included: TUG; Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Frailty Index; Older American Resources and Service Functional Scale; and self-reported falls. Of note, 3- and 6-month follow-up was conducted. Generalised linear model with log-binomial distribution was utilised. Relative risks (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. Results: TUG scores were available for 911/2918 patients, mean age 76.2 (SD 7.8) and 57.9% female. There was an association between TUG scores and frailty (P < 0.05) and functional decline at 3 (P < 0.05) and 6 (P < 0.05) months but not self-reported falls. For TUG scores 10-19 seconds, 20-29 seconds and ≥30 seconds, respectively: (i) frailty RR (95% CI): 1.8 (1.3-2.4), 3.0 (2.2-4.2) and 3.7 (2.6-5.1); (ii) functional decline RR (95% CI): 2.7 (1.1-6.4), 5.5 (2.1-14.3) and 8.9 (3.0-25.8); (iii) falls RR (95% CI): 0.9 (0.5-1.5), 1.3 (0.6-2.5) and 1.1 (0.4-3.5). Conclusion: in community dwelling elders presenting to the ED following minor trauma, TUG scores were associated with frailty and strongly associated with functional decline at 3 and 6 months post injury. TUG scores were not associated with self-reported falls. Use of the TUG in the ED will help identify frail patients at risk of functional decline.
Authors: Nicole D A Boyé; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Esther M M Van Lieshout; Klaas A Hartholt; Ed F Van Beeck; Tischa J M Van der Cammen Journal: Geriatr Gerontol Int Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 2.730
Authors: Luiz Guilherme da Silva Telles; François Billaut; Gélio Cunha; Aline de Souza Ribeiro; Estêvão Rios Monteiro; Ana Cristina Barreto; Luís Leitão; Patrícia Panza; Jeferson Macedo Vianna; Jefferson da Silva Novaes Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Ali M Albarrati; Nichola S Gale; Margaret M Munnery; Natasha Reid; John R Cockcroft; Dennis J Shale Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.289
Authors: Jessica Robinson-Papp; Gary Gensler; Allison Navis; Seth Sherman; Ronald J Ellis; Benjamin B Gelman; Dennis L Kolson; Scott L Letendre; Elyse J Singer; Miguel Valdes-Sueiras; Susan Morgello Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Gallin Montgomery; Jamie McPhee; Mati Pääsuke; Sarianna Sipilä; Andrea B Maier; Jean-Yves Hogrel; Hans Degens Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 4.241