Differential utility of various frailty diagnostic tools in non‐geriatric hospital departments of several countries: A longitudinal study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThere is limited knowledge on the performance of different frailty scales in clinical settings. We sought to evaluate in non‐geriatric hospital departments the feasibility, agreement and predictive ability for adverse events after 1 year follow‐up of several frailty assessment tools.MethodsLongitudinal study with 667 older adults recruited from five hospitals in three different countries (Spain, Italy and United Kingdom). Participants were older than 75 years attending the emergency room, cardiology and surgery departments. Frailty scales used were Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL scale, Tilburg and Groningen Frailty Indicators, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Analyses included the prevalence of frailty, degree of agreement between tools, feasibility and prognostic value for hospital readmission, worsening of disability and mortality, by tool and setting.ResultsEmergency Room and cardiology were the settings with the highest frailty prevalence, varying by tool between 40.4% and 67.2%; elective surgery was the one with the lowest prevalence (between 13.2% and 38.2%). The tools showed a fair to moderate agreement. FP showed the lowest feasibility, especially in urgent surgery (35.6%). FRAIL, CFS and FP predicted mortality and readmissions in several settings, but disability worsening only in cardiology.ConclusionsFrailty is a highly frequent condition in older people attending non‐geriatric hospital departments. We recommend that based upon their current feasibility and predictive ability, the FRAIL scale, CFS and FP should be preferentially used in these settings. The low concordance among the tools and differences in prevalence reported and predictive ability suggest the existence of different subtypes of frailty.