Title |
Derivation of a frailty index from the interRAI acute care instrument
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, March 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12877-015-0026-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ruth E Hubbard, Nancye M Peel, Mayukh Samanta, Leonard C Gray, Brant E Fries, Arnold Mitnitski, Kenneth Rockwood |
Abstract |
A better understanding of the health status of older inpatients could underpin the delivery of more individualised, appropriate health care. 1418 patients aged ≥ 70 years admitted to 11 hospitals in Australia were evaluated at admission using the interRAI assessment system for Acute Care. This instrument surveys a large number of domains, including cognition, communication, mood and behaviour, activities of daily living, continence, nutrition, skin condition, falls, and medical diagnosis. Variables across multiple domains were selected as health deficits. Dichotomous data were coded as symptom absent (0 deficit) or present (1 deficit). Ordinal scales were recoded as 0, 0.5 or 1 deficit based on face validity and the distribution of data. Individual deficit scores were summed and divided by the total number considered (56) to yield a Frailty index (FI-AC) with theoretical range 0-1. The index was normally distributed, with a mean score of 0.32 (±0.14), interquartile range 0.22 to 0.41. The 99% limit to deficit accumulation was 0.69, below the theoretical maximum of 1.0. In logistic regression analysis including age, gender and FI-AC as covariates, each 0.1 increase in the FI-AC increased the likelihood of inpatient mortality twofold (OR: 2.05 [95% CI 1.70 - 2.48]). Quantification of frailty status at hospital admission can be incorporated into an existing assessment system, which serves other clinical and administrative purposes. This could optimise clinical utility and minimise costs. The variables used to derive the FI-AC are common to all interRAI instruments, and could be used to precisely measure frailty across the spectrum of health care. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 4 | 31% |
Australia | 1 | 8% |
Sweden | 1 | 8% |
France | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
Scientists | 4 | 31% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
Estonia | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 111 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 23 | 20% |
Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 11% |
Other | 12 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
Other | 23 | 20% |
Unknown | 18 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 44% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 15% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
Psychology | 3 | 3% |
Other | 16 | 14% |
Unknown | 21 | 18% |