Cargando…

Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: Across the world, frailty is part of the guidelines that are being developed in the COVID‐19 pandemic for triaging in crisis situations. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) evaluates the ability to perform daily tasks to identify frail individuals, potentially excluding those from intensive...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Festen, Dederieke A. M., Schoufour, Josje D., Hilgenkamp, Thessa I. M., Oppewal, Alyt
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014292/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33821163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12371
_version_ 1783673557664923648
author Festen, Dederieke A. M.
Schoufour, Josje D.
Hilgenkamp, Thessa I. M.
Oppewal, Alyt
author_facet Festen, Dederieke A. M.
Schoufour, Josje D.
Hilgenkamp, Thessa I. M.
Oppewal, Alyt
author_sort Festen, Dederieke A. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Across the world, frailty is part of the guidelines that are being developed in the COVID‐19 pandemic for triaging in crisis situations. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) evaluates the ability to perform daily tasks to identify frail individuals, potentially excluding those from intensive care (IC) treatment. Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience varying degrees of dependence, distinct from age‐related physical deterioration. Using the CFS for triage in crisis situations could potentially unjustifiably exclude individuals with ID from IC treatment. Our objective was to compare the classification of individuals with ID into different frailty categories based on the CFS and the well‐studied ID‐frailty index and to determine suitability of CFS for evaluation of frailty in individuals with ID during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the observational healthy aging and intellectual disabilities (HA‐ID) study included 982 individuals with ID of ≥50 years, who were classified according to the CFS and the ID‐frailty index. RESULTS: Of the cohort of 982 older adults with ID, 626 (63.7%) would be classified as moderately frail (CFS score 6), but 92% of this group is not moderately frail according to the ID‐frailty index. Furthermore, 199 (20.3%) would be classified as at least severely frail (CFS score 7–9), but 74.9% of this group is not severely frail according to the ID‐frailty index. Overall, 730 out of 982 (74.9%) individuals would be incorrectly classified by the CFS as too frail to have a good probability of survival. The ID‐frailty index predicts mortality better than the CFS in individuals with ID. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the CFS is not suitable to evaluate frailty in individuals with ID, with potential dramatic consequences for triage and decision‐making during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We strongly recommend using the ID‐frailty index when assessing probability of survival for individuals with ID.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8014292
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80142922021-04-01 Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic Festen, Dederieke A. M. Schoufour, Josje D. Hilgenkamp, Thessa I. M. Oppewal, Alyt J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil Brief Research Report BACKGROUND: Across the world, frailty is part of the guidelines that are being developed in the COVID‐19 pandemic for triaging in crisis situations. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) evaluates the ability to perform daily tasks to identify frail individuals, potentially excluding those from intensive care (IC) treatment. Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience varying degrees of dependence, distinct from age‐related physical deterioration. Using the CFS for triage in crisis situations could potentially unjustifiably exclude individuals with ID from IC treatment. Our objective was to compare the classification of individuals with ID into different frailty categories based on the CFS and the well‐studied ID‐frailty index and to determine suitability of CFS for evaluation of frailty in individuals with ID during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the observational healthy aging and intellectual disabilities (HA‐ID) study included 982 individuals with ID of ≥50 years, who were classified according to the CFS and the ID‐frailty index. RESULTS: Of the cohort of 982 older adults with ID, 626 (63.7%) would be classified as moderately frail (CFS score 6), but 92% of this group is not moderately frail according to the ID‐frailty index. Furthermore, 199 (20.3%) would be classified as at least severely frail (CFS score 7–9), but 74.9% of this group is not severely frail according to the ID‐frailty index. Overall, 730 out of 982 (74.9%) individuals would be incorrectly classified by the CFS as too frail to have a good probability of survival. The ID‐frailty index predicts mortality better than the CFS in individuals with ID. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the CFS is not suitable to evaluate frailty in individuals with ID, with potential dramatic consequences for triage and decision‐making during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We strongly recommend using the ID‐frailty index when assessing probability of survival for individuals with ID. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-01-24 2021-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8014292/ /pubmed/33821163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12371 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities published by International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Brief Research Report
Festen, Dederieke A. M.
Schoufour, Josje D.
Hilgenkamp, Thessa I. M.
Oppewal, Alyt
Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic
title Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic
title_full Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic
title_fullStr Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic
title_full_unstemmed Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic
title_short Determining Frailty in People With Intellectual Disabilities in the COVID‐19 Pandemic
title_sort determining frailty in people with intellectual disabilities in the covid‐19 pandemic
topic Brief Research Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014292/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33821163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12371
work_keys_str_mv AT festendederiekeam determiningfrailtyinpeoplewithintellectualdisabilitiesinthecovid19pandemic
AT schoufourjosjed determiningfrailtyinpeoplewithintellectualdisabilitiesinthecovid19pandemic
AT hilgenkampthessaim determiningfrailtyinpeoplewithintellectualdisabilitiesinthecovid19pandemic
AT oppewalalyt determiningfrailtyinpeoplewithintellectualdisabilitiesinthecovid19pandemic