Cargando…
Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7
Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly use...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36612612 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010290 |
_version_ | 1784865166087684096 |
---|---|
author | O’Caoimh, Rónán McGauran, Jane O’Donovan, Mark R. Gillman, Ciara O’Hea, Anne Hayes, Mary O’Connor, Kieran Moloney, Elizabeth Alcock, Megan |
author_facet | O’Caoimh, Rónán McGauran, Jane O’Donovan, Mark R. Gillman, Ciara O’Hea, Anne Hayes, Mary O’Connor, Kieran Moloney, Elizabeth Alcock, Megan |
author_sort | O’Caoimh, Rónán |
collection | PubMed |
description | Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly used, short frailty screens to an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in an urban University Hospital ED. Consecutive attendees aged ≥70 years were screened by trained raters, blind to the CGA, with the Variable Indicative of Placement risk (VIP), 3 and 4-item versions, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and PRISMA-7. Accuracy was measured from the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). In total, 197 patients were included, median age 79 (±10); 46% were female. Half (49%) were confirmed as frail after CGA. All instruments differentiated frail from non-frail states, although the CFS (AUROC: 0.91) and PRISMA-7 (AUROC: 0.90) had higher accuracy compared to the VIP-4 (AUROC: 0.84) and VIP-3 (AUROC: 0.84). The CFS was significantly more accurate than the VIP-3 (p = 0.026) or VIP-4 (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference between the CFS and PRISMA-7 (p = 0.90). The CFS and PRISMA-7 were more accurate and should be considered in preference to the VIP (3 or 4-item versions) to identify frailty in EDs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9819173 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98191732023-01-07 Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 O’Caoimh, Rónán McGauran, Jane O’Donovan, Mark R. Gillman, Ciara O’Hea, Anne Hayes, Mary O’Connor, Kieran Moloney, Elizabeth Alcock, Megan Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly used, short frailty screens to an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in an urban University Hospital ED. Consecutive attendees aged ≥70 years were screened by trained raters, blind to the CGA, with the Variable Indicative of Placement risk (VIP), 3 and 4-item versions, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and PRISMA-7. Accuracy was measured from the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). In total, 197 patients were included, median age 79 (±10); 46% were female. Half (49%) were confirmed as frail after CGA. All instruments differentiated frail from non-frail states, although the CFS (AUROC: 0.91) and PRISMA-7 (AUROC: 0.90) had higher accuracy compared to the VIP-4 (AUROC: 0.84) and VIP-3 (AUROC: 0.84). The CFS was significantly more accurate than the VIP-3 (p = 0.026) or VIP-4 (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference between the CFS and PRISMA-7 (p = 0.90). The CFS and PRISMA-7 were more accurate and should be considered in preference to the VIP (3 or 4-item versions) to identify frailty in EDs. MDPI 2022-12-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9819173/ /pubmed/36612612 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010290 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article O’Caoimh, Rónán McGauran, Jane O’Donovan, Mark R. Gillman, Ciara O’Hea, Anne Hayes, Mary O’Connor, Kieran Moloney, Elizabeth Alcock, Megan Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 |
title | Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 |
title_full | Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 |
title_fullStr | Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 |
title_full_unstemmed | Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 |
title_short | Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7 |
title_sort | frailty screening in the emergency department: comparing the variable indicative of placement risk, clinical frailty scale and prisma-7 |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36612612 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010290 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ocaoimhronan frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT mcgauranjane frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT odonovanmarkr frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT gillmanciara frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT oheaanne frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT hayesmary frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT oconnorkieran frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT moloneyelizabeth frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 AT alcockmegan frailtyscreeningintheemergencydepartmentcomparingthevariableindicativeofplacementriskclinicalfrailtyscaleandprisma7 |