↓ Skip to main content

The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
68 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2136-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralph K. L. So, Jonathan Bannard-Smith, Chris P. Subbe, Daryl A. Jones, Joost van Rosmalen, Geoffrey K. Lighthall, the METHOD study investigators

Abstract

Frailty is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of frailty may be an essential part of evaluation in any healthcare encounter that might result in an escalation of care. The purpose of the study was to assess the frequency and association of frailty with clinical outcomes in patients subject to rapid response team (RRT) review. In this multi-national prospective observational cohort study, centres with existing RRTs collected data over a 7-day period, with follow up of all patients at 24 h following their RRT call and at hospital discharge or 30 days following the event trigger (whichever came sooner). Investigators also collected data on the triggers and interventions provided and a bedside assessment on the level of patients' frailty using a clinical frailty scale. Amongst 1133 patients, 40% were screened as frail, which was associated with older age (p < 0.001), admission under a medical speciality (p < 0.001), increased severity of illness at the time of the RRT review (p = 0.0047), and substantially higher frequency of limitations of care (p < 0.001). Importantly, 72% of patients screened as frail were either dead or dependent on hospital care by 30 days (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the significant risk factors for the composite endpoint "poor recovery" (died or were hospital-dependent by 30 days) were age (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.05; p < 0.001), frailty level (p < 0.001), existing limitation of care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; p < 0.001), and the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score (p < 0.001). Higher frailty scores were associated with increased mortality and dependence on health care at 30 days. Our results indicate that frailty has an influence on the clinical trajectory of deteriorating patients and that such assessment should be included in discussion of goals and expectations of care. Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR5535 . Registered on 23 December 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,040,522
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#815
of 6,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,202
of 350,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#20
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.