Stuck, Anna K.; Mangold, Joel M; Wittwer, Rachel; Limacher, Andreas; Bischoff-Ferrari, Heike A (2022). Ability of 3 Frailty Measures to Predict Short-Term Outcomes in Older Patients Admitted for Post-Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 23(5), pp. 880-884. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.09.029
|
Text
Stuck_JAMDA_2022.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (499kB) | Preview |
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the ability of 3 commonly used frailty measures to predict short-term clinical outcomes in older patients admitted for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation.
DESIGN
Observational cohort study.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Consecutive patients (n = 207) admitted to a geriatric inpatient rehabilitation facility.
METHODS
Frailty on admission was assessed using a frailty index, the physical frailty phenotype, and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Predictive capacity of the frailty instruments was analyzed for (1) nonhome discharge, (2) readmission to acute care, (3) functional decline, and (4) prolonged length of stay, using multivariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
RESULTS
The number of patients classified as frail was 91 (44.0%) with the frailty index, 134 (64.7%) using the frailty phenotype, and 151 (73.0%) with the CFS. The 3 frailty measures revealed acceptable discriminatory accuracy for nonhome discharge (area under the curve ≥ 0.7) but differed in their predictive ability: the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for nonhome discharge was highest for the CFS [6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-21.1], compared to the frailty index (4.1, 95% CI 2.0-8.4) and the frailty phenotype (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.2-6.6). For the other outcomes, discriminatory accuracy based on ROC tended to be lower and predictive ability varied according to frailty measure. Readmission to acute care from inpatient rehabilitation was predicted by all instruments, most pronounced by the frailty phenotype (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.6-18.8) and the frailty index (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.6), and less so by the CFS (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-3.8).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Frailty measures may contribute to improved prediction of outcomes in geriatric inpatient rehabilitation. The choice of the instrument may depend on the individual outcome of interest and the corresponding discriminatory ability of the frailty measure.
Item Type: |
Journal Article (Original Article) |
---|---|
Division/Institute: |
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of General Internal Medicine (DAIM) > Geriatric Clinic 04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Department of Clinical Research (DCR) |
UniBE Contributor: |
Eggimann, Anna, Wittwer, Rachel Barbara, Limacher, Andreas |
Subjects: |
600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health |
ISSN: |
1538-9375 |
Publisher: |
Elsevier |
Language: |
English |
Submitter: |
Doris Kopp Heim |
Date Deposited: |
12 May 2022 10:41 |
Last Modified: |
20 Feb 2024 14:16 |
Publisher DOI: |
10.1016/j.jamda.2021.09.029 |
PubMed ID: |
34687605 |
Uncontrolled Keywords: |
Clinical Frailty Scale Geriatric rehabilitation frailty index frailty phenotype nonhome discharge readmission |
BORIS DOI: |
10.48350/169964 |
URI: |
https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/169964 |