Amy Elliott1, Kay Phelps1, Emma Regen2, Simon Paul Conroy2. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, Leicestershire, UK. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester School of Medicine, Room 3.37, Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 7HA, UK.
Abstract
Introduction: identifying the most at risk older people in Emergency Departments (EDs) may help guide clinical practice, and service improvement in emergency care, but little is known about how to implement such tools in practice. Methods: consensus building was used to determine the desirable characteristics of a risk stratification process, including focus groups and literature reviewing. Candidate tools were tested using clinical vignettes in semi-structured interviews with a range of clinicians working in one large ED, assessing speed of use, ease of use and agreement with clinical judgement. The primary outcome was the likelihood of future use of a given frailty tool. Results: the ideal tool characteristics included brevity (<1 min), simplicity and multidimensionality; tools selected for testing included the Identification of Seniors At Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale, PRISMA-7 and Silver Code. One hundred and twenty-one staff members (43% of the total ED workforce) were recruited from one large ED in the East Midlands. Two hundred and thirty-six individual frailty tool assessments were undertaken using 1 of 10 clinical vignettes; 75% of staff stated that they would use at least one of the tools again, with no significant differences between the individual tools. The median time to complete the tool was around 1 min per patient for all four tools. There were no significant differences in timing, ease of use or agreement with clinical judgement between tools. Discussion: validated risk stratification tools are quick, simple, easy to use and 75% of staff would use the tools again in the future.
Introduction: identifying the most at risk older people in Emergency Departments (EDs) may help guide clinical practice, and service improvement in emergency care, but little is known about how to implement such tools in practice. Methods: consensus building was used to determine the desirable characteristics of a risk stratification process, including focus groups and literature reviewing. Candidate tools were tested using clinical vignettes in semi-structured interviews with a range of clinicians working in one large ED, assessing speed of use, ease of use and agreement with clinical judgement. The primary outcome was the likelihood of future use of a given frailty tool. Results: the ideal tool characteristics included brevity (<1 min), simplicity and multidimensionality; tools selected for testing included the Identification of Seniors At Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale, PRISMA-7 and Silver Code. One hundred and twenty-one staff members (43% of the total ED workforce) were recruited from one large ED in the East Midlands. Two hundred and thirty-six individual frailty tool assessments were undertaken using 1 of 10 clinical vignettes; 75% of staff stated that they would use at least one of the tools again, with no significant differences between the individual tools. The median time to complete the tool was around 1 min per patient for all four tools. There were no significant differences in timing, ease of use or agreement with clinical judgement between tools. Discussion: validated risk stratification tools are quick, simple, easy to use and 75% of staff would use the tools again in the future.
Authors: Joe Hollinghurst; Gemma Housley; Alan Watkins; Andrew Clegg; Thomas Gilbert; Simon P Conroy Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Thomas Gilbert; Jenny Neuburger; Joshua Kraindler; Eilis Keeble; Paul Smith; Cono Ariti; Sandeepa Arora; Andrew Street; Stuart Parker; Helen C Roberts; Martin Bardsley; Simon Conroy Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rónán O'Caoimh; Maria Costello; Cliona Small; Lynn Spooner; Antoinette Flannery; Liam O'Reilly; Laura Heffernan; Edel Mannion; Anna Maughan; Alma Joyce; D William Molloy; John O'Donnell Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Noemi R Simon; Andrea S Jauslin; Marco Rueegg; Raphael Twerenbold; Maurin Lampart; Stefan Osswald; Stefano Bassetti; Sarah Tschudin-Sutter; Martin Siegemund; Christian H Nickel; Roland Bingisser Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Sarah Hoffmann; Amalie Wiben; Marie Kruse; Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Maurice A Lembeck; Ellen Astrid Holm Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.692