The use of frailty questionnaires in inpatients in two neurorehabilitation units in the East Midlands - A cross-sectional cohort study with follow-up to 1-year after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.
Laura Edwards, Vina Tesorero, Fattaneh Zonouzi, Piera Santullo, Phoebe Owen, Adam L Gordon
{"title":"The use of frailty questionnaires in inpatients in two neurorehabilitation units in the East Midlands - A cross-sectional cohort study with follow-up to 1-year after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.","authors":"Laura Edwards, Vina Tesorero, Fattaneh Zonouzi, Piera Santullo, Phoebe Owen, Adam L Gordon","doi":"10.1177/14782715241242509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty correlates with poor clinical outcomes and is not routinely assessed in neurorehabilitation inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited adults from two neurorehabilitation units. We administered six validated tools for assessing frailty and collected data around length of stay, discharge, readmission and change in rehabilitation outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-eight participants aged between 31 and 84 years were recruited with a range of neurological diagnoses. Frailty prevalence ranged between 23% and 46%, depending on the scale used, with little agreement between tools. Frailty status did not correlate with age, gender, length of stay, discharge destination and rehabilitation outcome measures. One-year readmission was higher in participants rated as frail by the Frail-Non-Disabled Questionnaire, the FRESH-screening questionnaire and the Clinical Frailty Scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Frailty ascertainment was variable depending on the tool used. Three frailty indices predicted readmission rate at 1 year but no other outcome measures. Therefore, frailty tools may have limited utility in this clinical population.</p>","PeriodicalId":46606,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715241242509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Frailty correlates with poor clinical outcomes and is not routinely assessed in neurorehabilitation inpatient settings.
Methods: We recruited adults from two neurorehabilitation units. We administered six validated tools for assessing frailty and collected data around length of stay, discharge, readmission and change in rehabilitation outcome measures.
Results: Seventy-eight participants aged between 31 and 84 years were recruited with a range of neurological diagnoses. Frailty prevalence ranged between 23% and 46%, depending on the scale used, with little agreement between tools. Frailty status did not correlate with age, gender, length of stay, discharge destination and rehabilitation outcome measures. One-year readmission was higher in participants rated as frail by the Frail-Non-Disabled Questionnaire, the FRESH-screening questionnaire and the Clinical Frailty Scale.
Conclusion: Frailty ascertainment was variable depending on the tool used. Three frailty indices predicted readmission rate at 1 year but no other outcome measures. Therefore, frailty tools may have limited utility in this clinical population.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (JRCPE) is the College’s quarterly, peer-reviewed journal, with an international circulation of 8,000. It has three main emphases – clinical medicine, education and medical history. The online JRCPE provides full access to the contents of the print journal and has a number of additional features including advance online publication of recently accepted papers, an online archive, online-only papers, online symposia abstracts, and a series of topic-specific supplements, primarily based on the College’s consensus conferences.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
