Search

Introduction: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study., Methods: A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors., Results: In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include., Conclusions: Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Objective: frailty is a central concept in geriatric medicine, yet its utility in the Emergency Department (ED) is not well understood nor well utilised. Our objectives were to develop an ED frailty index (FI-ED), using the Rockwood cumulative deficits model and to evaluate its association with adverse outcomes., Method: this was a large multinational prospective cohort study using data from the interRAI Multinational Emergency Department Study. The FI-ED was developed from the Canadian cohort and validated in the multinational cohort. All patients aged ≥75 years presenting to an ED were included. The FI-ED was created using 24 variables included in the interRAI ED-Contact Assessment tool., Results: there were 2,153 participants in the Canadian cohort and 1,750 in the multinational cohort. The distribution of the FI-ED was similar to previous frailty indices. The mean FI-ED was 0.26 (Canadian cohort) and 0.32 (multinational cohort) and the 99th percentile was 0.71 and 0.81, respectively. In the Canadian cohort, a 0.1 unit increase in the FI-ED was significantly associated with admission (odds ratio (OR) = 1.43 [95% CI: 1.34-1.52]); death at 28 days (OR = 1.55 [1.38-1.73]); prolonged hospital stay (OR = 1.37 [1.22-1.54]); discharge to long-term care (OR = 1.30 [1.16-1.47]); and need for Comprehensive geriatric Assessment (OR = 1.51 [1.41-1.60]). The multinational cohort showed similar associations., Conclusion: the FI-ED conformed to characteristics previously reported. A FI, developed and validated from a brief geriatric assessment tool could be used to identify ED patients at higher risk of adverse events., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)