Not All Frailty Assessments Are Created Equal: Comparability of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessments in Assessing Older People in Residential Care.

Biological research for nursing Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1177/10998004241254459
Jonathan Kong, Kelly Trinh, Kathrine Hammill, Carla Chia-Ming Chen
{"title":"Not All Frailty Assessments Are Created Equal: Comparability of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessments in Assessing Older People in Residential Care.","authors":"Jonathan Kong, Kelly Trinh, Kathrine Hammill, Carla Chia-Ming Chen","doi":"10.1177/10998004241254459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To evaluate the comparability of frailty assessment tools - the electronic frailty index (eFI), retrospective electronic frailty index (reFI), and clinical frailty scale (CFS) - in older residents of care facilities. <b>Methods:</b> Data from 813 individuals aged 65 or older, with frailty and co-morbidities, collected between 2022 and 2023, were analysed using various statistical methods. <b>Results:</b> The results showed significant differences in frailty classification among the tools: 78.3% were identified as moderately to severely frail by eFI, 59.6% by reFI, and 92.1% by CFS. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences (<i>p</i> < .05) in their assessments, indicating variability in measurement methods. <b>Discussion:</b> This study advances the understanding of frailty assessment within aged-care settings, highlighting the differences in the efficacy of these assessment tools. It underscores the challenges in frailty assessments and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of assessment methods to address the diverse facets of frailty in aged care.</p>","PeriodicalId":93901,"journal":{"name":"Biological research for nursing","volume":" ","pages":"526-536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological research for nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10998004241254459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the comparability of frailty assessment tools - the electronic frailty index (eFI), retrospective electronic frailty index (reFI), and clinical frailty scale (CFS) - in older residents of care facilities. Methods: Data from 813 individuals aged 65 or older, with frailty and co-morbidities, collected between 2022 and 2023, were analysed using various statistical methods. Results: The results showed significant differences in frailty classification among the tools: 78.3% were identified as moderately to severely frail by eFI, 59.6% by reFI, and 92.1% by CFS. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences (p < .05) in their assessments, indicating variability in measurement methods. Discussion: This study advances the understanding of frailty assessment within aged-care settings, highlighting the differences in the efficacy of these assessment tools. It underscores the challenges in frailty assessments and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of assessment methods to address the diverse facets of frailty in aged care.

并非所有的虚弱评估都一样:基于电子健康数据的虚弱评估在评估养老院老人时的可比性。
目的评估虚弱评估工具--电子虚弱指数(eFI)、回顾性电子虚弱指数(reFI)和临床虚弱量表(CFS)--在护理机构老年居民中的可比性。研究方法采用多种统计方法分析了 2022 年至 2023 年期间收集的 813 名 65 岁或以上、患有虚弱症和并发症的人的数据。结果显示结果显示,不同工具的虚弱程度分类存在明显差异:78.3%的人被 eFI 识别为中度至重度虚弱,59.6%的人被 reFI 识别为中度至重度虚弱,92.1%的人被 CFS 识别为中度至重度虚弱。统计检验证实,这些工具的评估结果存在显著差异(p < .05),表明测量方法存在差异。讨论:这项研究加深了人们对老年护理机构中虚弱评估的理解,突出了这些评估工具在功效上的差异。它强调了虚弱评估所面临的挑战,并强调有必要不断改进评估方法,以应对老年护理机构中的各种虚弱问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信