Fabrice Mowbray1, Audrey-Anne Brousseau2, Eric Mercier3, Don Melady4, Marcel Émond3, Andrew P Costa1. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON. 2. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec. 3. Axe Sante des Populations et Pratiques Optimales en Sante, Centre de recherche du CHU de Quebec, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec. 4. Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2016 Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) updates introduced frailty screening within triage to more accurately code frail patients who may deteriorate waiting for care. The relationship between triage acuity and frailty is not well understood, but may help inform which supplemental geriatric assessments are beneficial to support care in the emergency department (ED). Our objectives were to investigate the relationship between triage acuity and frailty, and to compare their associations with a series of patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian cohort from a multinational prospective study. Data were collected on ED patients 75 years of age and older from eight ED sites across Canada between November 2009 and April 2012. Triage acuity was assigned using the CTAS, whereas frailty was measured using an ED frailty index. Spearman rank and binary logistic regression were used to examine associations. RESULTS: A total of 2,153 ED patients were analyzed. No association was found between the CTAS and ED frailty index scores assigned to patients (r = .001; p = 0.99). The ED frailty index was associated with hospital admission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-1.6), hospital length of stay (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2-1.6), future hospitalization (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.05-1.2), and ED recidivism (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.04-1.2). The CTAS was associated with hospital admission (e.g., CTAS 2 v. 5; OR = 6; 95% CI = 3.3-11.4). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that frailty and triage acuity are independent but complementary measures. EDs may benefit from comprehensive frailty screening post-triage, as frailty and its associated geriatric syndromes drive outcomes separate from traditional measures of acuity.
BACKGROUND: The 2016 Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) updates introduced frailty screening within triage to more accurately code frail patients who may deteriorate waiting for care. The relationship between triage acuity and frailty is not well understood, but may help inform which supplemental geriatric assessments are beneficial to support care in the emergency department (ED). Our objectives were to investigate the relationship between triage acuity and frailty, and to compare their associations with a series of patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian cohort from a multinational prospective study. Data were collected on ED patients 75 years of age and older from eight ED sites across Canada between November 2009 and April 2012. Triage acuity was assigned using the CTAS, whereas frailty was measured using an ED frailty index. Spearman rank and binary logistic regression were used to examine associations. RESULTS: A total of 2,153 ED patients were analyzed. No association was found between the CTAS and ED frailty index scores assigned to patients (r = .001; p = 0.99). The ED frailty index was associated with hospital admission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-1.6), hospital length of stay (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2-1.6), future hospitalization (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.05-1.2), and ED recidivism (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.04-1.2). The CTAS was associated with hospital admission (e.g., CTAS 2 v. 5; OR = 6; 95% CI = 3.3-11.4). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that frailty and triage acuity are independent but complementary measures. EDs may benefit from comprehensive frailty screening post-triage, as frailty and its associated geriatric syndromes drive outcomes separate from traditional measures of acuity.
Authors: Marco Rueegg; Søren Kabell Nissen; Mikkel Brabrand; Tobias Kaeppeli; Thomas Dreher; Christopher R Carpenter; Roland Bingisser; Christian H Nickel Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 5.221
Authors: Laura C Blomaard; Corianne Speksnijder; Jacinta A Lucke; Jelle de Gelder; Sander Anten; Stephanie C E Schuit; Ewout W Steyerberg; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Bas de Groot; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-04-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kirsi Kemp; Janne Alakare; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Timo Strandberg; Jukka Tolonen; Lasse Lehtonen; Maaret Castrén Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2020-10-28