Search

Although several short-risk-prediction instruments are used in the emergency department (ED), there remains insufficient evidence to guide healthcare professionals on their use. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is an established screen comprising three Likert scales examining the risk of three adverse outcomes among community-dwelling older adults at one-year: institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and death, which are scored from one (rare/minimal) to five (certain/extreme) and combined into an Overall RISC score. In the present study, the RISC was externally validated by comparing it with different frailty screens to predict risk of hospitalisation (30-day readmission), prolonged length of stay (LOS), one-year mortality, and institutionalisation among 193 consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending a large university hospital ED in Western Ireland, assessed for frailty, determined by comprehensive geriatric assessment. The median LOS was 8 ± 9 days; 20% were re-admitted

Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly used, short frailty screens to an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in an urban University Hospital ED. Consecutive attendees aged ≥70 years were screened by trained raters, blind to the CGA, with the Variable Indicative of Placement risk (VIP), 3 and 4-item versions, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and PRISMA-7. Accuracy was measured from the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). In total, 197 patients were included, median age 79 (±10); 46% were female. Half (49%) were confirmed as frail after CGA. All instruments differentiated frail from non-frail states, although the CFS (AUROC: 0.91) and PRISMA-7 (AUROC: 0.90) had higher accuracy compared to the VIP-4 (AUROC: 0.84) and VIP-3 (AUROC: 0.84). The CFS was significantly more accurate than the VIP-3 (p = 0.026) or VIP-4 (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference between the CFS and PRISMA-7 (p = 0.90). The CFS and PRISMA-7 were more accurate and should be considered in preference to the VIP (3 or 4-item versions) to identify frailty in EDs.

Brief cognitive screening instruments are used to identify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms that warrant further assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci-Pr) among middle-aged and older Iranian adults. Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years and caregivers attending with them as normal controls (NCs) were recruited from geriatric outpatient clinics and a hospital in Tehran, Iran. All patients completed the Qmci-Pr before completing an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment and staging using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. NCs underwent the same assessment. In all, 92 participants with a median age of 70 years (±13) were available. Of these, 20 participants were NCs, 24 had subjective memory complaints (SMC), 24 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 24 had Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The Qmci-Pr had good accuracy in differentiating SMC and NC from MCI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.80 (0.69–0.91)) and in identifying cognitive impairment (MCI and mild AD) (AUC: 0.87 (0.80–0.95)) with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 80%, at an optimal cut-off of &lt, 53/100. The Qmci-Pr is an accurate short cognitive screening impairment for separating NC and patients with SMC from MCI and identifying cognitive impairment. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other widely used instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed. Given its established brevity, the Qmci-Pr is a useful screen for Iranian adults across the spectrum of cognitive decline.

Frailty is an independent age-associated predictor of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, many countries lack population estimates with large heterogeneity between studies. No population-based standardised metric for frailty is available. We applied the deficit accumulation model of frailty to create a frailty index (FI) using population-level estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study across 195 countries to create a novel GBD frailty index (GBD-FI). Standard FI criteria were applied to all GBD categories to select GBD-FI items. Content validity was assessed by comparing the GBD-FI with a selection of established FIs. Properties including the rate of deficit accumulation with age were examined to assess construct validity. Linear regression models were created to assess if mean GBD-FI scores predicted one-year incident mortality. From all 554 GBD items, 36 were selected for the GBD-FI. Face validity against established FIs was variable. Characteristic properties of a FI&mdash, higher mean score for females and a deficit accumulation rate of approximately 0.03 per year, were observed. GBD-FI items were responsible for 19% of total Disability-Adjusted Life Years for those aged &ge, 70 years in 2017. Country-specific mean GBD-FI scores ranged from 0.14 (China) to 0.19 (Hungary) and were a better predictor of mortality from non-communicable diseases than age, gender, Healthcare Access and Quality Index or Socio-Demographic Index scores. The GBD-FI is a valid measure of frailty at population-level but further external validation is required.

Early identification of frailty through targeted screening can facilitate the delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and may improve outcomes for older inpatients. As several instruments are available, we aimed to investigate which is the most accurate and reliable in the Emergency Department (ED). We compared the ability of three validated, short, frailty screening instruments to identify frailty in a large University Hospital ED. Consecutive patients aged &ge, 70 attending ED were screened using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Identification of Seniors at Risk Tool (ISAR), and the Programme on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 item questionnaire (PRISMA-7). An independent CGA using a battery of assessments determined each patient&rsquo, s frailty status. Of the 280 patients screened, complete data were available for 265, with a median age of 79 (interquartile &plusmn, 9), 54% were female. The median CFS score was 4/9 (&plusmn, 2), ISAR 3/6 (&plusmn, 2), and PRISMA-7 was 3/7 (&plusmn, 3). Based upon the CGA, 58% were frail and the most accurate instrument for separating frail from non-frail was the PRISMA-7 (AUC 0.88, 95% CI:0.83&ndash, 0.93) followed by the CFS (AUC 0.83, 95% CI:0.77&ndash, 0.88), and the ISAR (AUC 0.78, 95% CI:0.71&ndash, 0.84). The PRISMA-7 was statistically significantly more accurate than the ISAR (p = 0.008) but not the CFS (p = 0.15). Screening for frailty in the ED with a selection of short screening instruments, but particularly the PRISMA-7, is reliable and accurate.

Although there is a high prevalence of delirium and cognitive impairment among hospitalised older adults, short, reliable cognitive measures are rarely used to monitor cognition and potentially alert healthcare professionals to early changes that might signal delirium. We evaluated the reliability, responsiveness, and feasibility of logical memory (LM), immediate verbal recall of a short story, compared to brief tests of attention as a bedside &ldquo, cognitive vital sign&rdquo, (CVS). Trained nursing staff performed twice-daily cognitive assessments on 84 clinically stable inpatients in two geriatric units over 3&ndash, 5 consecutive days using LM and short tests of attention and orientation including months of the year backwards. Scores were compared to those of an expert rater. Inter-rater reliability was excellent with correlation coefficients for LM increasing from r = 0.87 on day 1 to r = 0.97 by day 4 (p &lt, 0.0001). A diurnal fluctuation of two points from a total of 30 was deemed acceptable in clinically stable patients. LM scores were statistically similar (p = 0.98) with repeated testing (suggesting no learning effect). All nurses reported that LM was feasible to score routinely. LM is a reliable measure of cognition showing diurnal variation but minimal learning effects. Further study is required to define the properties of an ideal CVS test, though LM may satisfy these.

Short but accurate cognitive screening instruments are required in busy clinical practice. Although widely-used, the diagnostic accuracy of the standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) in different dementia subtypes remains poorly characterised. We compared the SMMSE to the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen in patients (n = 3020) pooled from three memory clinic databases in Canada including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer&rsquo, s, vascular, mixed, frontotemporal, Lewy Body and Parkinson&rsquo, s dementia, with and without co-morbid depression. Caregivers (n = 875) without cognitive symptoms were included as normal controls. The median age of patients was 77 (Interquartile = &plusmn, 9) years. Both instruments accurately differentiated cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia) from controls. The SMMSE most accurately differentiated Alzheimer&rsquo, s (AUC 0.94) and Lewy Body dementia (AUC 0.94) and least accurately identified MCI (AUC 0.73), vascular (AUC 0.74), and Parkinson&rsquo, s dementia (AUC 0.81). The Qmci had statistically similar or greater accuracy in distinguishing all dementia subtypes but particularly MCI (AUC 0.85). Co-morbid depression affected accuracy in those with MCI. The SMMSE and Qmci have good-excellent accuracy in established dementia. The SMMSE is less suitable in MCI, vascular and Parkinson&rsquo, s dementia, where alternatives including the Qmci screen may be used. The influence of co-morbid depression on scores merits further investigation.

Incontinence is common and associated with adverse outcomes. There are insufficient point prevalence data for incontinence in hospitals. We evaluated the prevalence of urinary (UI) and faecal incontinence (FI) and their predictors among inpatients in an acute university hospital on a single day. Continence status was recorded using the modified Barthel Index (BI). Baseline characteristics, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and ward type were recorded. In all, 435 patients were assessed, median age 72 &plusmn, 23 years and 53% were male. The median CFS score was 5 &plusmn, 3. The point prevalence of UI was 26% versus 11% for FI. While UI and FI increased with age, to 35.2% and 21.1% respectively for those &ge, 85, age was not an independent predictor. Incontinence also increased with frailty, CFS scores were independently associated with both UI (p = 0.006) and FI (p = 0.03), though baseline continence status was the strongest predictor. Patients on orthopaedic wards had the highest prevalence of incontinence. Continence assessments were available for only 11 (2%) patients. UI and FI are common conditions affecting inpatients, point prevalence increases with age and frailty status. Despite this, few patients receive comprehensive continence assessments. More awareness of its high prevalence is required to ensure incontinence is adequately managed in hospitals.