Cargando…
Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine: 1) the prevalence of frailty using Fried’s phenotype method and the Short Performance Physical Battery (SPPB), 2) agreement between frailty assessment methods, 3) the feasibility of assessing frailty using Fried’s phenotype method and the S...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29132301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0623-0 |
_version_ | 1783278317046071296 |
---|---|
author | Pritchard, J. M. Kennedy, C. C. Karampatos, S. Ioannidis, G. Misiaszek, B. Marr, S. Patterson, C. Woo, T. Papaioannou, A. |
author_facet | Pritchard, J. M. Kennedy, C. C. Karampatos, S. Ioannidis, G. Misiaszek, B. Marr, S. Patterson, C. Woo, T. Papaioannou, A. |
author_sort | Pritchard, J. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine: 1) the prevalence of frailty using Fried’s phenotype method and the Short Performance Physical Battery (SPPB), 2) agreement between frailty assessment methods, 3) the feasibility of assessing frailty using Fried’s phenotype method and the SPPB. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a geriatric out-patient clinic in Hamilton, Canada. A research assistant conducted all frailty assessments. Patients were classified as non-frail, pre-frail or frail according to Fried’s phenotype method and the SPPB. Agreement among methods is reported using the Cohen kappa statistic (standard error). Feasibility data included the percent of eligible participants agreeing to attempt the frailty assessments (criterion for feasibility: ≥90% of patients agreeing to the frailty assessment), equipment required, and safety considerations. A p-value of <0.05 is considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 110 participants (92%) and 109 participants (91%) agreed to attempt Fried’s phenotype method and SPPB, respectively. No adverse events occurred during any assessments. According to Fried’s phenotype method, the prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty was 35% and 56%, respectively, and according to the SPPB, the prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty was 50% and 35%, respectively. There was fair to moderate agreement between methods for determining which participants were frail (0.488 [0.082], p < 0.001) and pre-frail (0.272 [0.084], p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty and pre-frailty are common in this geriatric outpatient population, and there is fair to moderate agreement between Fried’s phenotype method and the SPPB. Over 90% of the patients who were eligible for the study agreed to attempt the frailty assessments, demonstrating that according to our feasibility criteria, frailty can be assessed in this patient population. Assessing frailty may help clinicians identify high-risk patients and tailor interventions based on baseline frailty characteristics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5683585 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56835852017-11-20 Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic Pritchard, J. M. Kennedy, C. C. Karampatos, S. Ioannidis, G. Misiaszek, B. Marr, S. Patterson, C. Woo, T. Papaioannou, A. BMC Geriatr Research Article BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine: 1) the prevalence of frailty using Fried’s phenotype method and the Short Performance Physical Battery (SPPB), 2) agreement between frailty assessment methods, 3) the feasibility of assessing frailty using Fried’s phenotype method and the SPPB. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a geriatric out-patient clinic in Hamilton, Canada. A research assistant conducted all frailty assessments. Patients were classified as non-frail, pre-frail or frail according to Fried’s phenotype method and the SPPB. Agreement among methods is reported using the Cohen kappa statistic (standard error). Feasibility data included the percent of eligible participants agreeing to attempt the frailty assessments (criterion for feasibility: ≥90% of patients agreeing to the frailty assessment), equipment required, and safety considerations. A p-value of <0.05 is considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 110 participants (92%) and 109 participants (91%) agreed to attempt Fried’s phenotype method and SPPB, respectively. No adverse events occurred during any assessments. According to Fried’s phenotype method, the prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty was 35% and 56%, respectively, and according to the SPPB, the prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty was 50% and 35%, respectively. There was fair to moderate agreement between methods for determining which participants were frail (0.488 [0.082], p < 0.001) and pre-frail (0.272 [0.084], p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty and pre-frailty are common in this geriatric outpatient population, and there is fair to moderate agreement between Fried’s phenotype method and the SPPB. Over 90% of the patients who were eligible for the study agreed to attempt the frailty assessments, demonstrating that according to our feasibility criteria, frailty can be assessed in this patient population. Assessing frailty may help clinicians identify high-risk patients and tailor interventions based on baseline frailty characteristics. BioMed Central 2017-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5683585/ /pubmed/29132301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0623-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pritchard, J. M. Kennedy, C. C. Karampatos, S. Ioannidis, G. Misiaszek, B. Marr, S. Patterson, C. Woo, T. Papaioannou, A. Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
title | Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
title_full | Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
title_fullStr | Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
title_short | Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
title_sort | measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29132301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0623-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pritchardjm measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT kennedycc measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT karampatoss measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT ioannidisg measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT misiaszekb measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT marrs measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT pattersonc measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT woot measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic AT papaioannoua measuringfrailtyinclinicalpracticeacomparisonofphysicalfrailtyassessmentmethodsinageriatricoutpatientclinic |