Modified Hospital Frailty Risk Score (mHFRS) as a Tool to Identify and Predict Outcomes for Hospitalised Older Adults at Risk of Frailty.

Lydia Sim, Ting Yu Chang, Kyaw Khine Htin, Aileen Lim, Thevapriya Selvaratnam, Simon Conroy, Kiat Sern Goh, Barbara Rosario
{"title":"Modified Hospital Frailty Risk Score (mHFRS) as a Tool to Identify and Predict Outcomes for Hospitalised Older Adults at Risk of Frailty.","authors":"Lydia Sim, Ting Yu Chang, Kyaw Khine Htin, Aileen Lim, Thevapriya Selvaratnam, Simon Conroy, Kiat Sern Goh, Barbara Rosario","doi":"10.22540/JFSF-09-235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to determine whether modified Hospital Frailty Risk Score (mHFRS) can identify frail hospitalised older adults by comparing mHFRS to HFRS and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was undertaken in patients =>65 years hospitalised following an Emergency Department attendance between 1<sup>st</sup> July 2022 and 31<sup>st</sup> March 2023. Predictive models were evaluated with correlation and measure of agreement between frailty risk scores, CFS and HFRS, CFS and modified HFRS (mHFRS) using the Spearman's rank correlation and Cohen's kappa (κ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3042 patients, CFS categorised 1635 (53.7%) patients as non-frail (CFS 1-4) and 1407 (46.3%) as frail (CFS 5-9,p<0.001). Frail patients were more likely to be female (55.9%), older (81.8 years, SD 8.41 vs 75.3 years, SD 7.20, p<0.001), with longer LOS (52.5% % vs 31.5%, p<0.001), higher 30-day emergency re-admission (18.5% vs 9.9%, p<0.001) and higher mortality at all time points. We could compute mHFRS for 1623 (53.4%) patients, of whom, 37.5% were low risk, 40.5% intermediate risk and 22.1% high frailty risk. mHFRS showed significant correlation with CFS (p<0.001) and HFRS (p<0.001), respectively and achieved comparable association with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>mHFRS was better at identifying non-frail patients and provides a novel, standardised and comparable frailty risk stratification tool for screening older hospitalised patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":73754,"journal":{"name":"Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls","volume":"9 4","pages":"235-248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11613971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22540/JFSF-09-235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether modified Hospital Frailty Risk Score (mHFRS) can identify frail hospitalised older adults by comparing mHFRS to HFRS and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS).

Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken in patients =>65 years hospitalised following an Emergency Department attendance between 1st July 2022 and 31st March 2023. Predictive models were evaluated with correlation and measure of agreement between frailty risk scores, CFS and HFRS, CFS and modified HFRS (mHFRS) using the Spearman's rank correlation and Cohen's kappa (κ).

Results: Of 3042 patients, CFS categorised 1635 (53.7%) patients as non-frail (CFS 1-4) and 1407 (46.3%) as frail (CFS 5-9,p<0.001). Frail patients were more likely to be female (55.9%), older (81.8 years, SD 8.41 vs 75.3 years, SD 7.20, p<0.001), with longer LOS (52.5% % vs 31.5%, p<0.001), higher 30-day emergency re-admission (18.5% vs 9.9%, p<0.001) and higher mortality at all time points. We could compute mHFRS for 1623 (53.4%) patients, of whom, 37.5% were low risk, 40.5% intermediate risk and 22.1% high frailty risk. mHFRS showed significant correlation with CFS (p<0.001) and HFRS (p<0.001), respectively and achieved comparable association with clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: mHFRS was better at identifying non-frail patients and provides a novel, standardised and comparable frailty risk stratification tool for screening older hospitalised patients.

改进的医院虚弱风险评分(mHFRS)作为识别和预测住院老年人虚弱风险结局的工具
目的:本研究旨在通过将mHFRS与HFRS和临床虚弱量表(CFS)进行比较,确定改进的医院虚弱风险评分(mHFRS)是否可以识别虚弱的住院老年人。方法:对2022年7月1日至2023年3月31日在急诊科就诊的65岁患者进行回顾性研究。采用Spearman’s秩相关和Cohen’s kappa (κ)对衰弱风险评分、CFS与HFRS、CFS与改良HFRS (mHFRS)之间的相关性和一致性进行评估。结果:在3042例患者中,CFS将1635例(53.7%)患者分类为非虚弱(CFS 1-4), 1407例(46.3%)患者分类为虚弱(CFS 5-9)。结论:mHFRS在识别非虚弱患者方面更好,为筛查老年住院患者提供了一种新的、标准化的、可比较的虚弱风险分层工具。
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
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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