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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pritchard, J. M., Kennedy, C. C., Karampatos, S., Ioannidis, G., Misiaszek, B., Marr, S., Patterson, C., Woo, T., Papaioannou, A.
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