Search

Background: Accessible measures specific to the Canadian context are needed to support health system planning for older adults living with frailty. We sought to develop and validate the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Hospital Frailty Risk Measure (HFRM)., Methods: Using CIHI administrative data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients aged 65 years and older who were discharged from Canadian hospitals from Apr. 1, 2018, to Mar. 31, 2019. We used a 2-phase approach to develop and validate the CIHI HFRM. The first phase, construction of the measure, was based on the deficit accumulation approach (identification of age-related conditions using a 2-year look-back). The second phase involved refinement into 3 formats (continuous risk score, 8 risk groups and binary risk measure), with assessment of their predictive validity for several frailty-related adverse outcomes using data to 2019/20. We assessed convergent validity with the United Kingdom Hospital Frailty Risk Score., Results: The cohort consisted of 788 701 patients. The CIHI HFRM included 36 deficit categories and 595 diagnosis codes that cover morbidity, function, sensory loss, cognition and mood. The median continuous risk score was 0.111 (interquartile range 0.056-0.194, equivalent to 2-7 deficits); 35.1% ( n = 277 000) of the cohort were found at risk of frailty (≥ 6 deficits). The CIHI HFRM showed satisfactory predictive validity and reasonable goodness-of-fit. For the continuous risk score format (unit = 0.1), the hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year risk of death was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-1.41), with a C-statistic of 0.717 (95% CI 0.715-0.720); the odds ratio for high users of hospital beds was 1.85 (95% CI 1.82-1.88), with a C-statistic of 0.709 (95% CI 0.704-0.714), and the HR of 90-day admission to long-term care was 1.91 (95% CI 1.88-1.93), with a C-statistic of 0.810 (95% CI 0.808-0.813). Compared with the continuous risk score, using a format of 8 risk groups had similar discriminatory ability and the binary risk measure had slightly weaker performance., Interpretation: The CIHI HFRM is a valid tool showing good discriminatory power for several adverse outcomes. The tool can be used by decision-makers and researchers by providing information on hospital-level prevalence of frailty to support system-level capacity planning for Canada's aging population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: John Muscedere is the Scientific Director of the Canadian Frailty Network (CFN), which is funded by the government of Canada through the Networks of Centres of Excellence program. He has received grant support through CFN for frailty research. Kenneth Rockwood has asserted copyright of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) through Dalhousie University’s Industry, Liaison, and Innovation Office, which has been licensed to Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Synairgen Research, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, KCR S.A., Icosavax, BioAge Labs, Biotest AG, AstraZeneca UK Limited and Qu Biologics. He has also asserted copyright (with Dr. Olga Theou) for the Pictorial Fit-Frail Scale (PFFS), which has been licensed to Congenica; use of both the CFS and PFFS is free for education, research and nonprofit health care with completion of a permission agreement stipulating users will not change, charge for or commercialize the scales. He reports personal fees from the Burnaby Division Family Practice, United Arab Emirates University, Singapore National Research Foundation, McMaster University, Chinese Medical Association, Wake Forest University Medical School, University of Omaha and Atria Institute, as well as funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. He chaired the data safety monitoring board for the ADMET-II clinical trial. He is co-founder of Ardea Outcomes, which (DGI Clinical until 2021) in the last 3 years has contracts with pharmaceutical and device manufacturers (Danone, Hollister, INmune, Novartis, Takeda) on individualized outcome measurement. In 2020, on behalf of Ardea Outcomes, he attended an advisory board meeting with Nutricia on dementia. He is associate director of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging, and special advisor to the president of Cape Breton University on frailty and aging. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the only systematic approach through which the patient's perspective can be considered by surgeons (in determining a procedure's efficacy or appropriateness) or healthcare systems (in the context of value-based healthcare). PROMs in registries enable international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after total joint arthroplasty, but the extent to which those scores may vary between different registry populations has not been clearly defined., Questions/purposes: (1) To what degree do mean change in general and joint-specific PROM scores vary across arthroplasty registries, and to what degree is the proportion of missing PROM scores in an individual registry associated with differences in the mean reported change scores? (2) Do PROM scores vary with patient BMI across registries? (3) Are comorbidity levels comparable across registries, and are they associated with differences in PROM scores?, Methods: Thirteen national, regional, or institutional registries from nine countries reported aggregate PROM scores for patients who had completed PROMs preoperatively and 6 and/or 12 months postoperatively. The requested aggregate PROM scores were the EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) index values, on which score 1 reflects "full health" and 0 reflects "as bad as death." Joint-specific PROMs were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), with total scores ranging from 0 to 48 (worst-best), and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (KOOS-PS) values, scored 0 to 100 (worst-best). Eligible patients underwent primary unilateral THA or TKA for osteoarthritis between 2016 and 2019. Registries were asked to exclude patients with subsequent revisions within their PROM collection period. Raw aggregated PROM scores and scores adjusted for age, gender, and baseline values were inspected descriptively. Across all registries and PROMs, the reported percentage of missing PROM data varied from 9% (119 of 1354) to 97% (5305 of 5445). We therefore graphically explored whether PROM scores were associated with the level of data completeness. For each PROM cohort, chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (men versus women; age 20 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, and older than 75 years; and high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were evaluated descriptively by comparing proportions with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of 3 or higher across registries for each PROM cohort., Results: The mean improvement in EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.16 to 0.33 for hip registries and 0.12 to 0.25 for knee registries. The mean improvement in the OHS (seven registries) ranged from 18 to 24, and for the HOOS-PS (three registries) it ranged from 29 to 35. The mean improvement in the OKS (six registries) ranged from 15 to 20, and for the KOOS-PS (four registries) it ranged from 19 to 23. For all PROMs, variation was smaller when adjusting the scores for differences in age, gender, and baseline values. After we compared the registries, there did not seem to be any association between the level of missing PROM data and the mean change in PROM scores. The proportions of patients with BMI 30 kg/m 2 or higher ranged from 16% to 43% (11 hip registries) and from 35% to 62% (10 knee registries). Distributions of patients across six BMI categories differed across hip and knee registries. Further, for all PROMs, distributions also differed across 12 predefined PROM strata. For the EQ-5D, patients in the younger age groups (20 to 64 years and 65 to 74 years) had higher proportions of BMI measurements greater than 30 kg/m 2 than older patients, and patients with the lowest baseline scores had higher proportions of BMI measurements more than 30 kg/m 2 compared with patients with higher baseline scores. These associations were similar for the OHS and OKS cohorts. The proportions of patients with ASA Class at least 3 ranged across registries from 6% to 35% (eight hip registries) and from 9% to 42% (nine knee registries)., Conclusion: Improvements in PROM scores varied among international registries, which may be partially explained by differences in age, gender, and preoperative scores. Higher BMI tended to be associated with lower preoperative PROM scores across registries. Large variation in BMI and comorbidity distributions across registries suggest that future international studies should consider the effect of adjusting for these factors. Although we were not able to evaluate its effect specifically, missing PROM data is a recurring challenge for registries. Demonstrating generalizability of results and evaluating the degree of response bias is crucial in using registry-based PROMs data to evaluate differences in outcome. Comparability between registries in terms of specific PROMs collection, postoperative timepoints, and demographic factors to enable confounder adjustment is necessary to use comparison between registries to inform and improve arthroplasty care internationally., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2022 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Objective: Canada's cesarean delivery (CD) rate continues to increase. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada advocates the use of the modified Robson classification for comparisons. This study describes national and provincial CD rates according to this classification system., Methods: All 2016-2017 in-hospital births in Canada (outside Québec) reported to the Discharge Abstract Database were categorized using the modified Robson classification system. CD rates, group size, and contributions of each group to the overall volume of CD were reported. Rates by province and hospital peer group were also examined (Canadian Task Force Classification III)., Results: A total of 286 201 women gave birth; among these, 83 262 (29.1%) had CDs. Robson group 5 (term singleton previous CD) had a CD rate of 80.5% and was the largest contributing group to the overall number of CD (36.6%). Women whose labour was induced (Robson group 2A) had a CD rate almost double the rate of women with spontaneous labour (Robson group 1): 33.5% versus 18.4%. These latter two groups made the next largest contributions to overall CD (15.7% and 14.1%, respectively). There were substantial variations in CD rates across provinces and among hospital peer groups., Conclusion: The study found large variations in CD rates across provinces and hospitals within each Robson group, thus suggesting that examining variations to determine the groups contributing the most to CD rates (Robson groups 5, 2A, and 1) may provide valuable insight for reducing CD rates. This study provides a benchmark for measuring the impact of future initiatives to reduce CD rates in Canada., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)