Aparna Arjunan1, Nancye M Peel2, Ruth E Hubbard3. 1. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: aparna.arjunan@health.qld.gov.au. 2. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; PA-Southside Clinical Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Both slow gait speed (GS) and higher levels of frailty are associated with adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people. However these measures are not routinely utilized to stratify risk status in the hospital setting. Here we assessed their predictive validity in older inpatients. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation wards of a tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 65 years and older (N=258). INTERVENTIONS: A frailty index (FI) was calculated from routinely collected data and GS was determined from a timed 10-meter walk test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse outcomes were longer length of stay (≥75th percentile), poor discharge outcome (discharge to a higher level of care or inpatient mortality), and inpatient delirium and falls. RESULTS: Mean age ± SD was 79±8 years and 54% were women. Mean FI ± SD on admission was 0.42±0.13 and an FI could be derived in all participants. Mean GS ± SD was 0.26±0.33 m/sec. Those unable to complete a timed walk on admission (50%) were allocated a GS of 0. There was a weak but significant inverse relationship between FI and GS (correlation coefficient -0.396). Both parameters were significantly associated with longer length of stay (P<.001), poor discharge outcome (P≤.001), and delirium (P<.05).The prevalence of adverse outcomes was highest in the cohort who were more frail and unable to mobilize at admission to rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: FI and GS each showed predictive validity for adverse outcomes. In a geriatric rehabilitation setting, they measure different aspects of vulnerability and combining the 2 may add value in identifying patients most at risk.
OBJECTIVE: Both slow gait speed (GS) and higher levels of frailty are associated with adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people. However these measures are not routinely utilized to stratify risk status in the hospital setting. Here we assessed their predictive validity in older inpatients. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation wards of a tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 65 years and older (N=258). INTERVENTIONS: A frailty index (FI) was calculated from routinely collected data and GS was determined from a timed 10-meter walk test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse outcomes were longer length of stay (≥75th percentile), poor discharge outcome (discharge to a higher level of care or inpatient mortality), and inpatient delirium and falls. RESULTS: Mean age ± SD was 79±8 years and 54% were women. Mean FI ± SD on admission was 0.42±0.13 and an FI could be derived in all participants. Mean GS ± SD was 0.26±0.33 m/sec. Those unable to complete a timed walk on admission (50%) were allocated a GS of 0. There was a weak but significant inverse relationship between FI and GS (correlation coefficient -0.396). Both parameters were significantly associated with longer length of stay (P<.001), poor discharge outcome (P≤.001), and delirium (P<.05).The prevalence of adverse outcomes was highest in the cohort who were more frail and unable to mobilize at admission to rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS:FI and GS each showed predictive validity for adverse outcomes. In a geriatric rehabilitation setting, they measure different aspects of vulnerability and combining the 2 may add value in identifying patients most at risk.
Authors: Aafke J de Groot; Elizabeth M Wattel; Carmen S van Dam; Romke van Balen; Johannes C van der Wouden; Cees M P M Hertogh Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Stefan J Teipel; Chimezie O Amaefule; Stefan Lüdtke; Doreen Görß; Sofia Faraza; Sven Bruhn; Thomas Kirste Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-04-25
Authors: Linson J Alapatt; Nancye M Peel; Natasha Reid; Leonard C Gray; Ruth E Hubbard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 3.390