Laura Edwards, Vina Tesorero, Fattaneh Zonouzi, Piera Santullo, Phoebe Owen, Adam L Gordon
{"title":"东米德兰地区两家神经康复中心住院病人虚弱程度问卷的使用情况--一项横断面队列研究,对住院康复病人出院后 1 年的随访。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.