Assessing the utility of frailty scores in triage: a comparative study of validated scales.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03684-7
Arian Zaboli, Francesco Brigo, Serena Sibilio, Gloria Brigiari, Magdalena Massar, Gabriele Magnarelli, Marta Parodi, Michael Mian, Norbert Pfeifer, Gianni Turcato
{"title":"Assessing the utility of frailty scores in triage: a comparative study of validated scales.","authors":"Arian Zaboli, Francesco Brigo, Serena Sibilio, Gloria Brigiari, Magdalena Massar, Gabriele Magnarelli, Marta Parodi, Michael Mian, Norbert Pfeifer, Gianni Turcato","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03684-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Currently, there is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of frailty scales and their ability to enhance or support triage operations. This study aimed to assess the utility of three common frailty scales (CFS, PRISMA-7, ISAR) and determine their utility in the triage setting. This prospective observational monocentric study was conducted at Merano Hospital's Emergency Department (ED) from June 1st to December 31st, 2023. All patients attending this ED during the 80-day study period were included, and frailty scores were correlated with three outcomes: hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and severity of condition as assessed by ED physicians. Patients were categorized by age, and analyses were performed for the entire study population, patients aged 18-64, and those aged 65 or older. Univariate analysis was followed by multivariable analysis to evaluate whether frailty scores were independently associated with the outcomes. In multivariable analysis, none of the frailty scores were found to be associated with the study outcomes, except for the CFS, which was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, with an odds ratio of 1.752 (95% CI 1.148-2.674; p = 0.009) in the general population and 1.708 (95% CI 1.044-2.793; p = 0.033) in the population aged ≥ 65. Presently, available frailty scores do not appear to be useful in the triage context. Future research should consider developing new systems for accurate frailty assessment to support risk prediction in the triage assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"563-571"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03684-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Currently, there is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of frailty scales and their ability to enhance or support triage operations. This study aimed to assess the utility of three common frailty scales (CFS, PRISMA-7, ISAR) and determine their utility in the triage setting. This prospective observational monocentric study was conducted at Merano Hospital's Emergency Department (ED) from June 1st to December 31st, 2023. All patients attending this ED during the 80-day study period were included, and frailty scores were correlated with three outcomes: hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and severity of condition as assessed by ED physicians. Patients were categorized by age, and analyses were performed for the entire study population, patients aged 18-64, and those aged 65 or older. Univariate analysis was followed by multivariable analysis to evaluate whether frailty scores were independently associated with the outcomes. In multivariable analysis, none of the frailty scores were found to be associated with the study outcomes, except for the CFS, which was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, with an odds ratio of 1.752 (95% CI 1.148-2.674; p = 0.009) in the general population and 1.708 (95% CI 1.044-2.793; p = 0.033) in the population aged ≥ 65. Presently, available frailty scores do not appear to be useful in the triage context. Future research should consider developing new systems for accurate frailty assessment to support risk prediction in the triage assessment.

评估虚弱评分在分诊中的实用性:有效量表的比较研究。
目前,有关虚弱量表的功效及其加强或支持分诊操作的能力的证据并不一致。本研究旨在评估三种常见虚弱量表(CFS、PRISMA-7 和 ISAR)的效用,并确定它们在分诊环境中的效用。这项前瞻性单中心观察研究于 2023 年 6 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日在梅拉诺医院急诊科(ED)进行。在为期 80 天的研究期间,所有在该急诊科就诊的患者均被纳入研究范围,虚弱评分与三种结果相关:住院、30 天死亡率和急诊科医生评估的病情严重程度。患者按年龄分类,并对整个研究人群、18-64 岁的患者和 65 岁或以上的患者进行了分析。单变量分析后进行多变量分析,以评估虚弱评分是否与结果有独立关联。在多变量分析中,没有发现任何一项虚弱评分与研究结果相关,但 CFS 除外,CFS 与 30 天死亡风险增加相关,在一般人群中的几率比为 1.752(95% CI 1.148-2.674;p = 0.009),在年龄≥ 65 岁的人群中的几率比为 1.708(95% CI 1.044-2.793;p = 0.033)。目前,现有的虚弱评分在分诊中似乎并不实用。未来的研究应考虑开发新的系统来进行准确的虚弱评估,以支持分诊评估中的风险预测。
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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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