Frailty

Background Prehabilitation in clinical trials improves fitness, improves quality of life, reduces complications, and reduces hospital length of stay It is not standard of care in routine clinical practice. This prospective observational study reports the outcomes of a clinical AHP prehabilitation service for older people undergoing major cancer surgery. Methods The LUHFT Prehab service commenced in August 2017, patients prior to major abdominal surgery for cancer were eligible for referral, this was inclusive of 8 different surgical specialties. Referred patients were invited to attend a multi-disciplinary prehabilitation clinic inclusive of physiotherapy, occupational therapy and dietetic support. In a review of the past 12 months clinical frailty score was recorded at baseline and pre surgery. Patients were given individualised exercise, wellbeing, and nutrition plans, and provided with support via 121 or group based follow up. Where distance was a barrier, telephone clinics were undertaken. Results Over a 12-month period 477 patients were referred over the age of 65, of these 436 underwent baseline frailty assessment. Of these 380 went on to have surgery with an average period of 40 days between initial prehab assessment and their elective admission. In these patients 50 scored 5 or above on the clinical frailty scale, 105 fell within the vulnerable category and 163 in managing well at baseline. Of those patients reassessed pre surgery 100% of patients with a frailty score of 5 or above either improved or maintained their score. Of those that scored a frailty score of 4, 94% either improved or maintained their score. Conclusion A prehabilitation service is feasible and improves frailty in the lead up to major abdominal elective surgery in a cohort that would otherwise be expected to decondition due to the nature of their disease. Prehabilitation should be part of standard care for older patients undergoing cancer surgery.

Background: Geriatrician assessment is associated with improved clinical outcomes for seriously injured older adults. In 2021, the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital opened a dedicated Major Trauma (MT) ward for adults with significant polytrauma. Four Geriatrician sessions were introduced per week, establishing the ‘Frail-T' service. Our aim was to provide specialist review to frail trauma patients within 72 hours of admission. Methods: All patients reviewed were prospectively added to a secure database. Patients >65 years on the MT ward were screened for frailty and reviewed if Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) >4. If medical issues arose in patients CFS ≤4, input was provided upon request. Reviews on Critical Care and surgical wards were provided on referral. Qualitative data collected after service implementation assessed staff satisfaction and service improvements. Our database was compared to analysis from 2019 and cross-referenced with the Scottish Trauma Audit Group (STAG) figures to estimate unmet needs. Results: 220 patients were reviewed between September 2021 and August 2022. Median age was 81. 33.2% of patients were frail. 45% received delirium management intervention. Compared to 2019, median time to Geriatrician input improved in polytrauma patients (5 to 3 days), but head and isolated chest injuries (usually on surgical/medical wards) experienced delays (6 and 5 days respectively). 332 additional patients aged >65 on the STAG database were identified; Geriatrician review was recorded in 38% (n=126). Qualitative feedback deemed the service highly accessible (88%, n=15) with themes of improvement: greater service promotion and educational input. Conclusions: Only a third of patients reviewed by the team were frail, reflecting requirement for medical expertise in trauma care. Cohorting polytrauma in a dedicated ward with proactive screening has improved time to Geriatrician review. Delays remain for isolated head and chest wall injuries. Improvement work will focus on greater identification of patients beyond the MT ward.

Background:

Populations in sub-Saharan Africa are ageing rapidly and Tanzania is one country experiencing this acute demographic shift. Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions (1)) is common in the community and associated with greater risk of hospitalisation. To-date, the prevalence amongst older hospital inpatients is unknown.

Objective:

To establish the prevalence of multimorbidity amongst older hospitalised adults in northern Tanzania.

Methods:

For 6-months, adults aged ≥60 admitted to medical wards in four hospitals were invited to participate. A standardised questionnaire, structured around the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, was completed. This included items regarding health insurance and exemption from health user fees (granted based on age and low socioeconomic means). Multimorbidity was self-reported using a list of 16 conditions from the Study of Global Ageing and Adult Health Questionnaire, with additional screening for hypertension.

Results:

Between March and August 2021, 540 adults aged ≥60 years were admitted and 308 (57%) underwent assessment. Reasons for non-participation included discharge (n=159) and death (n=34) prior to researcher attendance. Of 277 participants, 145 (52%) had self-reported multimorbidity. Data were unavailable for 31 participants who were unsure of their past medical history. Hypertension was reported by 146 (52%) and an additional 35 (11%) had mean readings ≥140/90 when screened. Mann-Whitney U revealed a significantly greater burden of multimorbidity in those with health insurance (p<0.001) or exemption from user fees (p=.34), compared with participants without.

Conclusion:

Multimorbidity is common amongst hospitalised older adults in Tanzania. Higher rates amongst those with insurance or exemption are likely because of greater access to healthcare services and therefore diagnosis. Simple screening for hypertension identified further individuals with multimorbidity, demonstrating that it may remain underestimated. Widening access to healthcare is a government priority, but the impact of multimorbidity also poses a challenge to hospitals and policymakers.

References:

1. Johnston, MC et al. 2018. European Journal of Public Health, 29, 182-189.

Introduction

Frailty is defined as “a condition characterised by loss of biological reserves, failure of physiological mechanisms and consequent increased risk of experiencing a range of adverse outcomes, including hospitalisation, longer length of inpatient stay, and delirium” [1-4]. We aim to investigate the association between baseline frailty and functional recovery amongst hospitalized older adults and its association with inpatient delirium.

Method

Retrospective analysis of patients admitted to a Geriatrics ward from August to November 2022. Interactions between clinical outcomes with age, length of stay (LOS), discharge destination, Charlson Co-morbidity index (CCI) and Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) were evaluated plus incidence of inpatient delirium.

Results

In total, 58 patients reviewed, mean age 78.8 (±15.1) years, 43 (74%) woman. 79% were admitted from their own home with 56% same discharge destination and 9% inpatient mortality. Median LOS in hospital was 13 days with 8 days on the Geriatrics ward. Mean CFS on admission compared to discharge was (4.9 vs 5.7 (p<0.001)), with no significant difference in CCI. There was a significant association between CFS and LOS, both overall and on the Geriatrics ward (P<0.001). 17 patients (29%) developed delirium, with increased LOS (45 days vs 9 (P<0.001)), increased CFS both on admission (5.9 vs 4.4 (p=0.002)) and discharge (7.4 vs 5.0 (p<0.001)) and were less likely to be discharged to their own home (33.3% vs 84.8% (p<0.001)).

Conclusion

Frailty is a powerful predictor for possible risk of deconditioning and is associated with longer acute hospital stay in our more vulnerable patients. The coexistence of frailty and delirium significantly increased the risk of a prolonged hospital stay. This indicates that a multidisciplinary approach to provide a comprehensive geriatric assessment, is necessary to decrease LOSand the incidence of adverse outcomes as during this time period we had limited specialist therapy staff on the ward

Abstract

Introduction:

Chronic pain is associated with frailty. We hypothesised that painful comorbidities would be more strongly associated with frailty than non-painful comorbidities.

Method:

Data were from Investigating Musculoskeletal Health and Wellbeing, a UK-based cohort of people with or at risk of musculoskeletal problems or frailty. Average pain over the previous month was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). The original FRAIL questionnaire comprises five self-report items: Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses and Loss of weight. In this study, risk of frailty was operationalised using a modified FRAIL questionnaire, omitting the “illnesses” item which related to comorbidities. Comorbidities were classified as either ‘painful’ or ‘non-painful’ based on the International Association for the Study of Pain chronic pain classification criteria. Ordinal logistic regression models explored associations of comorbidity counts with frailty.

Results:

Cross-sectional data were from 2473 participants, 57% female, median age 72 (range 40 to 96) years. 518 (21%) participants were classified as frail. Mean (SD) pain score was 5.5 (2.5). Median (IQR) painful comorbidities was 2 (1 to 3) and non-painful 1 (0 to 2). Highest comorbidity frequency: arthritis (66%) and hypertension (38%). Pain was associated with frailty (OR 1.52 (1.45 to 1.58)). Painful comorbidities (aOR 1.64 (1.54 to 1.75) and non-painful comorbidities (aOR 1.31 (1.21 to 1.41)) were both associated with frailty when included in the same multivariable model adjusted for age, sex and BMI.

Conclusions:

Painful comorbidities were most strongly associated with frailty, although non-painful comorbidities also contributed. Pain and frailty are interconnected, and this might, in part, be due to comorbidities or their treatments. These findings provide justification for further research to identify the mechanisms through which pain is involved in frailty and to include pain management in interventions to ameliorate frailty.

Introduction

Both frailty and HF are common in the elderly population. Elderly HF patients have an increased risk of frailty, and frail elderly patients are at a higher risk of developing HF. Frailty is an independent predictor of mortality in cardiovascular disease. Sarcopenia(defined as decreased muscle mass and muscle strength and/or performance)is also prevalent in HF patients and may progress to cardiac cachexia. HF may induce sarcopenia, and sarcopenia may contribute to the poor prognosis of HF.

Aims:

To assess the prevalence of frailty in older HF inpatients • To determine the risk of sarcopenia in these patients Methods: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of consecutive patients, 60 years and over, admitted with HF to a UK hospital. Data was manually extracted from anonymized electronic records. The Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was used for the assessment of frailty, and the SARC-F tool was used for screening for sarcopenia. Patients with a medical history of HF but who did not present with decompensated HF were excluded. Also, patients with incomplete data were excluded. The IBM SPSS 28 statistical package was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics and risk estimates were calculated.

Results:

163 patients were analysed, 82 males and 81 females. The mean age was 81.4 years (SD 9.69). 71.5 % of patients were frail, while 28.5 % were non-frail. The risk of sarcopenia was 10.9 times greater in the frail than in the non-frail patients (OR = 10.9; 95% C.I 4.85 – 24.67). There was a lower risk of sarcopenia in male patients than in female patients (OR =0.45; 95% C.I 0.22 – 0.94).

Conclusions:

Frailty is prevalent in older heart failure inpatients. It significantly increases the risk of sarcopenia in these patients. Women are at higher risk of sarcopenia than men. More research is needed into frailty and sarcopenia.

Introduction

Patients with frailty who have emergency admissions are at risk of mortality and may benefit from Anticipatory Care Planning (ACP). Appropriate identification, to target limited resource in an in-patient environment can be challenging. We conducted a prospective study on a cohort of frail in-patients with a hospital admission of ≥ 72 hours duration.  We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SPICT tool alongside Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) as a predictor of mortality to improve our targeting of patients for ACP.

Method.

On a single day a SPICT form was completed prospectively for each inpatient on 3 hospital inpatient wards (Complex Frailty Unit, General/Orthopaedic Rehabilitation, Step-Down Unit).  Patients were deemed SPICT positive if they scored on ≥ 2 General Indicators and ≥ 2 Clinical Indicators. CFS was also recorded. Electronic records of this patient cohort were followed up for 9 months.

Results

Of 66 inpatients, 58 (87.9%) were aged ≥ 65 years and had a CFS ≥ 4. Mode CFS value = 6 (23 patients, 39.7%).  32 (55.2%) were SPICT positive; 26 (44.8%) SPICT negative.  At 3 months follow-up SPICT had Positive Predictive Value (PPV) 40.6% and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) 84.6% for mortality. At 6 months PPV = 56.3%; NPV = 80.8%. At 9 months PPV = 59.4%; NPV = 76.9%.  SPICT negative patients with CFS 6 had mortality risk of 14.3% at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up respectively.  SPICT positive patients with CFS 6 had mortality risks of 50% at 3 months and 62.5% at 6 and 9 months.

Conclusion

SPICT is a predictor of mortality in patients with frailty during unplanned admissions to hospital of ≥ 72 hours duration.  It is now used alongside CFS for all patients admitted to our Complex Frailty Unit, identifying patients most likely to benefit from inpatient ACP on discharge.

Introduction Oral frailty (OF), gradual loss of oral function combined associated with presbyphagia often in conjunction with cognitive and physical decline, has been recommended to be considered as a geriatric giant. DENTAL has been suggested as a possible screening tool for OF. We have looked at the prevalence of OF and its association with dysphagia, frailty and formal care, amongst people admitted acutely to the acute medical/frailty wards in our hospital. Methods OF, dysphagia and frailty were screened for as part of the routine clinical assessment of patients during the usual clinical ward round. Screening tools used were DENTAL for OF, Rockwood Score for frailty and 4QT for dysphagia. Age, sex comorbidities and the need for formal care was documented. Results 101 people were assessed over a 4 week period. Mean age was 84 years (65-99), 58 (57.4%) were female, 31(30.7%) were independent, 33 (32.6%) dementia, 57 (56.4%) frail, 54 (53.4%) had swallowing problems, and 34 (33.6%) OF. Of those with OF 97% had dysphagia, 88% were frail and 85% required formal care support (85%). OF was associated with dysphagia (p<.0001), frailty (p< 0.0001), formal care support (p<0.05) and dementia (p<0.05). there was an association between needing (p<0.01). conclusions of is associated with dysphagia, the need for care. may result in poor oral health contribute to dysphagia frailty, conversely due dependency nutrition dehydration. associations most likely be bidirectional. further work required elucidate this. clinical staff aware include screening their assessment older adult.

Background : Three challenges for ageing populations are frailty (a state of reduced physiological reserve), social isolation (objective lack of social connections), and loneliness (subjective experience of feeling alone). These are associated with adverse outcomes. This study aims to examine how frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation is associated with all-cause mortality and hospitalisation rate using data from UK Biobank, a large population-based research cohort. Methods: 502,456 UK Biobank participants were recruited 2006-2010. Baseline data assessed frailty (via two measures: Fried frailty phenotype, Rockwood frailty index), social isolation, and loneliness. Adjusted cox-proportional hazards models assessed association between frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation and all-cause mortality. Negative binomial regression models assessed hospitalisation rate. Findings: Frailty, social isolation, and loneliness are common in UK Biobank (frail as per frailty phenotype 3.38%, frail as per frailty index 4.68%, social isolation 9.04%, loneliness 4.75%). Social isolation/loneliness were more common in frailty/pre-frailty. Frailty is associated with increased mortality regardless of social isolation/loneliness. Hazard ratios for frailty (frailty phenotype) were 3.38 (3.11-3.67) with social isolation and 2.89 (2.75-3.05) without social isolation, 2.94 (2.64-3.27) with loneliness and 2.9 (2.76-3.04) without loneliness. Social isolation was associated with increased mortality at all levels of frailty; loneliness only in robust/pre-frail. Frailty was also associated with hospitalisation regardless of social isolation/loneliness. Incidence rate ratios for frailty (frailty phenotype) were 3.93 (3.66-4.23) with social isolation and 3.75 (3.6-3.9) without social isolation, 4.42 (4.04-4.83) with loneliness and 3.69 (3.55-3.83) without loneliness. At all levels frailty, social isolation/loneliness are associated with increased hospitalisation Results were similar using the frailty index definition. Conclusion: Social isolation is relevant at all levels frailty. Risk of loneliness is more pronounced in those who are robust or pre-frail. Proactive identification of loneliness regardless of physical health status may provide opportunities for intervention.

Introduction:

The Trauma Audit and Research Network report “Major Trauma in Older People” highlighted the need to recognise falls in older patients as a mechanism leading to potentially life-threatening injuries. Reasons behind falls can be equally serious and must be addressed concurrently. A Frail Trauma Pathway was introduced in the Emergency Department (ED) of a Major Trauma Centre (MTC) and subsequent audit revealed it was underutilised. We relaunched the Frail Trauma Pathway incorporating a checklist with the aim of improving patient care.

Method:

Retrospective data was collected over one week, including patients over 65 years with a Clinical Frailty Score ≥5, a low velocity trauma and multiple injuries or isolated head injury. We then updated the Frail Trauma Pathway incorporating a checklist, re-distributed it throughout the ED, sent staff email reminders and held teaching sessions. An educational “Advent Calendar” was circulated daily in December. Following this we repeated data collection.

Results:

20 patients pre and 18 post-intervention fitted inclusion criteria. There was a reduction in admission rates, improvement in ED senior doctor review for primary survey, increase in timely administration of Parkinson’s disease medication and venous thromboembolism assessment. However, there was a decline in other parameters measured. Due to the small patient cohort, it is difficult to assess if changes in results post-intervention are statistically significant.

Conclusion:

Several aspects of the frailty pathway showed improvement, notably admission reduction. This QIP demonstrates the difficulties of instigating change in an MTC, where numerous pathways result in ‘information overload’ and staff numbers are large and constantly changing. By focusing on the frail trauma checklist and incorporating it into our electronic records system we hope to improve compliance with the pathway. Further research on a national level is required to determine how to best care for this expanding cohort of patients.