Dataset Information

Frailty measurements in hospitalised orthopaedic populations age 65 and older: A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Aims and objectives

To identify and compare frailty instruments used with hospitalised orthopaedic patients aged over 65.

Background

Frailty predicts clinical events in orthopaedic patients aged over 65. However, the strengths and limitations of different approaches to measuring frailty in this population are rarely discussed. As such, a comprehensive review to address the gap is needed.

Design

Scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley framework.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 regarding frailty instruments in older orthopaedic patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed.

Results

The initial search resulted in 1,471 articles. After review against inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final set of 31 articles containing 15 unique frailty instruments were evaluated. Most of the articles were from Western countries. Fried's phenotype and Frailty Index were commonly used. The frailty index was mostly modified to measure frailty. In hip fracture, physical function items were frequently modified in the measurement of frailty. Trained physicians and nurses administered most frailty instruments. Frailty screening was commonly conducted at hospital admission and used to prognosticate both postoperative complications and hospital outcomes. Most instruments could be completed within 10 min. Reported psychometrics had acceptable reliability and validity.

Conclusion

Many reliable frailty measures have been used in the inpatient orthopaedic settings; however, evidence is still lacking for a gold standard frailty instrument. More research is needed to identify the best-performing measure. Frailty evaluation in patients with physical limitations is challenging with existing instruments. Clinical context, resources required and instrument quality are essential factors in selecting a frailty instrument.

Relevance to clinical practice

Musculoskeletal symptoms in older patients may bias frailty assessment. Proactive frailty screening with valid and practical instruments is vital to strengthen preoperative risk stratification and improve post-surgical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Roopsawang I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293223 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Over the past decade, there has been significant growth in the awareness and understanding of fragility among orthopaedic surgeons in the context of osteoporotic fractures and with it, improvements in the recognition and management of fragility fractures. Emerging as a major clinical and research focus in aged care is the concept of frailty and its associations with fragility, sarcopenia, falls and rehabilitation. Currently, research is lacking on how orthopaedic surgeons perceive frailty and the role of frailty screening. A baseline understanding of these perceptions is needed to inform integration of frailty identification and management for patient optimization in orthopaedic practices, as well as research and education efforts of patients and healthcare professionals in orthopaedic contexts. METHODS:We used an exploratory design guided by qualitative description to conduct 15 semi-structured telephone and in-person interviews across three orthopaedic surgeon subgroups (Registrars, Junior Consultants, and Senior Consultants). Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively and was guided by thematic saturation. RESULTS:Orthopaedic surgeons have a disparate understanding of frailty. Between colleagues, frailty is often referred to non-specifically to suggest a general state of risk to the patient. Frailty screening is regarded positively but its specific utility in orthopaedic environments is questioned. Easy-to-administer frailty screening tools that are not exclusive assessments of functional status are viewed most satisfactorily. However these tools are rarely used. CONCLUSIONS:There is little understanding among orthopaedic surgeons of frailty as a phenotype. Beliefs around modifiability of frailty were dissimilar as were the impact of related risk factors, such a cognitive status, chronic disease, social isolation, and environmental influences. This in turn may significantly impact on the occurrence and treatment outcomes of fragility fracture, a common orthopaedic problem in older populations. This study highlights need for knowledge translation efforts (e.g. education) to achieve cohesive understanding of frailty among health professionals.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate prescribing (IP) is common in hospitalised older adults with frailty. However, it is not known whether the presence of frailty confers an increased risk of mortality and readmissions from IP nor whether rectifying IP reduces this risk. This review was conducted to determine whether IP increases the risk of adverse outcomes in hospitalised middle-aged and older adults with frailty.MethodsA systematic review was conducted on IP in hospitalised middle-aged (45-64 years) and older adults (≥ 65 years) with frailty. This review considered multiple types of IP including potentially inappropriate medicines, prescribing omissions and drug interactions. Both observational and interventional studies were included. The outcomes were mortality and hospital readmissions. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, World of Science, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library. The search was updated to 12 July 2024. Meta-analysis was performed to pool risk estimates using the random effects model.ResultsA total of 569 studies were identified and seven met the inclusion criteria, all focused on the older population. One of the five observational studies found an association between IP and emergency department visits and readmissions at specific time points. Three of the observational studies were amenable to meta-analysis which showed no significant association between IP and hospital readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90-1.31). Meta-analysis of the subgroup assessing Beers criteria medicines demonstrated that there was a 27% increase in the risk of hospital readmissions (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.57) with this type of IP. In meta-analysis of the two interventional studies, there was a 37% reduced risk of mortality (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-1.00) with interventions that reduced IP compared to usual care but no difference in hospital readmissions (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19-3.67).ConclusionsInterventions to reduce IP were associated with reduced risk of mortality, but not readmissions, compared to usual care in older adults with frailty. The use of Beers criteria medicines was associated with hospital readmissions in this group. However, there was limited evidence of an association between IP more broadly and mortality or hospital readmissions. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.