A Comparison of Frailty Assessment Instruments in Different Clinical and Social Care Settings: The Frailtools Project.

To determine which of 8 commonly employed frailty assessment tools demonstrate the most appropriate characteristics to be employed in different clinical and social settings. Cross-sectional multicenter European-based study. 1440 patients aged ≥75 years evaluated in geriatric inpatient wards, geriatric outpatient clinics, primary care clinics, and nursing homes. The frailty instruments used were Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 3-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-3), 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), FRAIL, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The settings were geriatrics wards, outpatient clinics, primary care, and nursing homes. Suitability was evaluated by considering the feasibility (patients with the test fully completed), administration time (time spent for administering the test), and interscale agreement (Cohen kappa index among instruments to detect frailty). The prevalence of frailty varied across settings and adopted tests. The scales with the mean highest feasibility were the FRAIL scale (99.4%), SHARE-FI (98.3%), and GFST (95.0%). The mean shortest administration times were obtained with CFS (24 seconds), GFST (72 seconds), and FRAIL scale (90 seconds). The interscale agreement between most of the tests was fair. CFS followed by FTS-5 agreed at least moderately with a greater number of scales overall and in almost all settings. Based on feasibility, time to undertake the tool, and agreement with other scales, different scales would be recommended according to the setting considered. Our findings suggest that most of the tools evaluated are actually assessing different frailty constructs.

Oviedo-Briones M ，Laso ÁR ，Carnicero JA ，Cesari M ，Grodzicki T ，Gryglewska B ，Sinclair A ，Landi F ，Vellas B ，Checa-López M ，Rodriguez-Mañas L ... -  《-》

The ability of eight frailty instruments to identify adverse outcomes across different settings: the FRAILTOOLS project.

To compare the performance of eight frailty instruments to identify relevant adverse outcomes for older people across different settings over a 12 month follow-up. Observational longitudinal prospective study of people aged 75 + years enrolled in different settings (acute geriatric wards, geriatric clinic, primary care clinics, and nursing homes) across five European cities. Frailty was assessed using the following: Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), 3-item FTS (FTS-3), FRAIL scale, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool, and Clinical Frailty Scale. Adverse outcomes ascertained at follow-up were as follows: falls, hospitalization, increase in limitation in basic (BADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, and capacity to predict adverse outcomes in logistic regressions by each instrument above age, gender, and multimorbidity were calculated. A total of 996 individuals were followed (mean age 82.2 SD 5.5 years, 61.3% female). In geriatric wards, the FI-35 (69.1%) and the FTS-5 (67.9%) showed good sensitivity to predict death and good specificity to predict BADL worsening (70.3% and 69.8%, respectively). The FI-35 also showed good sensitivity to predict BADL worsening (74.6%). In nursing homes, the FI-35 and the FTSs predicted mortality and BADL worsening with a sensitivity > 73.9%. In geriatric clinic, the FI-35, the FTS-5, and the FRAIL scale obtained specificities > 85% to predict BADL worsening. No instrument achieved high enough sensitivity nor specificity in primary care. All the instruments predict the risk for all the outcomes in the whole sample after adjusting for age, gender, and multimorbidity. The associations of these instruments that remained significant by setting were for BADL worsening in geriatric wards [FI-35 OR = 5.94 (2.69-13.14), FTS-3 = 3.87 (1.76-8.48)], nursing homes [FI-35 = 4.88 (1.54-15.44), FTS-5 = 3.20 (1.61-6.38), FTS-3 = 2.31 (1.27-4.21), FRAIL scale = 1.91 (1.05-3.48)], and geriatric clinic [FRAIL scale = 4.48 (1.73-11.58), FI-35 = 3.30 (1.55-7.00)]; for IADL worsening in primary care [FTS-5 = 3.99 (1.14-13.89)] and geriatric clinic [FI-35 = 3.42 (1.56-7.49), FRAIL scale = 3.27 (1.21-8.86)]; for hospitalizations in primary care [FI-35 = 3.04 (1.25-7.39)]; and for falls in geriatric clinic [FI-35 = 2.21 (1.01-4.84)]. No single assessment instrument performs the best for all settings and outcomes. While in inpatients several commonly used frailty instruments showed good sensitivities (mainly for mortality and BADL worsening) but usually poor specificities, the contrary happened in geriatric clinic. None of the instruments showed a good performance in primary care. The FI-35 and the FTS-5 showed the best profile among the instruments assessed.

Oviedo-Briones M ，Rodríguez-Laso Á ，Carnicero JA ，Gryglewska B ，Sinclair AJ ，Landi F ，Vellas B ，Rodríguez Artalejo F ，Checa-López M ，Rodriguez-Mañas L ... -  《-》

FRAILTOOLS study protocol: a comprehensive validation of frailty assessment tools to screen and diagnose frailty in different clinical and social settings and to provide instruments for integrated care in older adults.

Checa-López M ，Oviedo-Briones M ，Pardo-Gómez A ，Gonzales-Turín J ，Guevara-Guevara T ，Carnicero JA ，Alamo-Ascencio S ，Landi F ，Cesari M ，Grodzicki T ，Rodriguez-Mañas L ，FRAILTOOLS consortium ... -  《BMC Geriatrics》

Accessing the discriminatory performance of FRAIL-NH in two-class and three-class frailty and examining its agreement with the frailty index among nursing home residents in mainland China.

Ge F ，Liu W ，Liu M ，Tang S ，Lu Y ，Hou T ... -  《BMC Geriatrics》

Frailty in Nursing Homes-A Prospective Study Comparing the FRAIL-NH and the Clinical Frailty Scale.

Frailty is common in nursing home (NH) residents, but its prevalence in German institutions is unknown. Valid and easy-to-use screening tools are needed to identify frail residents. We used the FRAIL-NH scale and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to (1) obtain the prevalence of frailty, (2) investigate the agreement between both instruments, and (3) evaluate their predictive validity for adverse health events in German NH residents. Prospective cohort study. German NH residents (n = 246, age 84 ± 8 years, 67% female). Frailty status was categorized according to FRAIL-NH (nonfrail, frail, most frail) and CFS (not frail, mild to moderately frail, severely frail). Agreement between instruments was examined by Spearman correlation, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CI, and sensitivity and specificity using the "most frail" category of FRAIL-NH as reference standard. Adverse health events (death, hospital admissions, falls) were recorded for 12 months, and multivariate cox and logistic regression models calculated. According to FRAIL-NH, 71.1% were most frail, 26.4% frail, and 2.5% nonfrail. According to CFS, 66.3% were severely frail, 26.8% mild to moderately frail, and 6.9% not frail. Both scales correlated significantly (r = 0.78; R2 = 60%). The AUC was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). Using a CFS cutoff of 7 points, sensitivity was 0.90 and specificity 0.92. The frailest groups according to both instruments had an increased risk of death [FRAIL-NH hazard ratio (HR) 2.19, 95% CI 1.21-3.99; CFS HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.43-4.58] and hospital admission [FRAIL-NH odds ratio (OR) 1.95, 95% CI 1.06-3.58; CFS OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.20] compared to less frail residents. The FRAIL-NH predicted recurrent faller status (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23-5.39). Frailty is highly prevalent in German NH residents. Both instruments show good agreement despite different approaches and are able to predict adverse health outcomes. Based on our findings and because of its simple administration, CFS may be an alternative to FRAIL-NH for assessing frailty in NHs.

Grosshauser FJ ，Schoene D ，Kiesswetter E ，Sieber CC ，Volkert D ... -  《-》