Not All Frailty Assessments Are Created Equal: Comparability of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessments in Assessing Older People in Residential Care.
Jonathan Kong, Kelly Trinh, Kathrine Hammill and 1 others
PMID 38739714WHAT IT FOUND
In 813 aged-care residents, electronic frailty scores and nurse-rated Clinical Frailty Scale did not line up.
The two electronic tools tracked each other, but the tools did not clearly match the care funding class.
Key findings
01CFS classified 92.1% of residents as moderate-severely frail, while eFI classified 78.3% and reFI classified 59.6% in the same category.
02CFS scores did not line up with eFI or reFI scores, while eFI and reFI scores tracked each other.
03eFI and reFI scores did not track AN-ACC classes, while residents in AN-ACC classification 9 and higher consistently had CFS scores higher than 6.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Record review from 10 facilities in one Australian state, so results may not apply to other aged-care settings. The authors called the findings preliminary and said the sample size made broad conclusions difficult. Frailty scores were collapsed into fit-mildly frail and moderate-severely frail groups, which can hide differences along the frailty continuum. Residents without an AN-ACC assessment or with incomplete records were excluded, so the summary applies to residents with complete data.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest and received no financial support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not choose one frailty tool as the best way to assess older residents or to align with AN-ACC funding. The tools disagreed, and the authors said the findings were indicative rather than conclusive.