Core requirements of frailty screening in the emergency department: an international Delphi consensus study.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study. METHODS: A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors. RESULTS: In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include. CONCLUSIONS: Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice.

Frailty Knowledge, Use of Screening Tools, and Educational Challenges in Emergency Departments in Ireland: A Multisite Survey.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing frailty and providing evidenced-based management in busy emergency departments is challenging. Understanding the knowledge and educational needs of ED staff is important to design training that might improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore frailty knowledge of ED staff, use of frailty screening instruments in Irish emergency departments, and educational challenges in the emergency department. METHODS: A multisite survey of ED staff (different specialties) was conducted between April and September 2021. An anonymous online survey was distributed via email. Free-text sections were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 168 staff (nursing, medical and allied health) participated, representing 9 of 26 Irish emergency departments (35%). Most respondents were nurses (n = 78, 46%). Less than half of respondents had received frailty identification training (n = 81, 48%). One-fifth of emergency doctors and nurses (20%) were unsure how to define frailty. Major barriers to ED frailty screening were resource deficits, insufficient diagnostic pathways from the emergency departments, and lack of education on suitable instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the ED staff surveyed relied on clinical judgment rather than formal training in frailty identification. A high proportion reported poor knowledge and low confidence in recognizing frailty. Dedicated staff with frailty management expertise, bespoke education initiatives, and clearly defined frailty screening pathways may help address the issues identified.

Comparing frailty prevalence between countries: validation of the Global Burden of Disease study Frailty Index (GBD-FI) in the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Accurate comparable prevalence proportions are required to better understand the epidemiology of frailty. Estimates in many countries are missing or incomparable. The Global Burden of Disease Frailty Index (GBD-FI) applies the deficit accumulation model to generate frailty scores from items available in the Global Burden of Disease study. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the GBD-FI. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). A 20-item modified GBD-FI was compared with established frailty measures: a 70-item frailty index (FI-70), the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Frailty Phenotype (FP) and SHARE-FI. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were fitted to examine diagnostic accuracy for frailty and predictive validity for 2-year mortality. RESULTS: In total, 31,624 participants aged ≥50 years from 15 countries were included. Frailty prevalence was 22% using the GBD-FI (ranging from 8% in Switzerland to 41% in Poland). The GBD-FI had good to excellent diagnostic accuracy for frailty, irrespective of approach; the AUC ranged from 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.87) measuring frailty using the CFS to 0.94 (0.93-0.94) with the FI-70. The GBD-FI had similar accuracy for 2-year mortality (AUC 0.71, 0.69-0.74) compared with the CFS (0.73; P = 0.186), FP (0.73; P = 0.392) and SHARE-FI (0.70; P = 0.255) but lower than the FI-70 (0.76; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The GBD-FI demonstrated concurrent and predictive validity, suggesting it is a valid measure of frailty. It has the potential to be an efficient, replicable and consistent approach to comparing frailty between countries and regions across time using GBD data.

Validation of a Harmonised, Three-Item Cognitive Screening Instrument for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE-Cog).

More accurate and standardised screening and assessment instruments are needed for studies to better understand the epidemiology of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia in Europe. The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) does not have a harmonised multi-domain cognitive test available. The current study proposes and validates a new instrument, the SHARE cognitive instrument (SHARE-Cog), for this large European longitudinal cohort. Three cognitive domains/sub-tests were available across all main waves of the SHARE and incorporated into SHARE-Cog; these included 10-word registration, verbal fluency (animal naming) and 10-word recall. Subtests were weighted using regression analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed from the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves. Diagnostic categories included normal cognition (NC), subjective memory complaints (SMC), MCI and dementia. A total of 20,752 participants were included from wave 8, with a mean age of 75 years; 55% were female. A 45-point SHARE-Cog was developed and validated and had excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying dementia (AUC = 0.91); very good diagnostic accuracy for cognitive impairment (MCI + dementia), (AUC = 0.81); and good diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing MCI from dementia (AUC = 0.76) and MCI from SMC + NC (AUC = 0.77). SHARE-Cog is a new, short cognitive screening instrument developed and validated to assess cognition in the SHARE. In this cross-sectional analysis, it has good-excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying cognitive impairment in this wave of SHARE, but further study is required to confirm this in previous waves and over time.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Frailty Screening Instruments Validated for Use among Older Adults Attending Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Early identification of frailty can prevent functional decline. Although multiple frailty screens exist for use in Emergency Departments (EDs), few are validated against diagnostic standards such as comprehensive geriatric assessment. To examine the diagnostic accuracy of ED screens for frailty, scientific databases were searched for prospective diagnostic accuracy test studies from January 2000 to September 2022. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using QUADAS-C. Psychometric properties were extracted and analysed using R. Six studies involving 1,663 participants describing seven frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7, CFS, VIP, FRESH, BPQ, TRST, and ISAR), representing 13 unique data points, were included. The mean age of participants ranged from 76 to 86 years. The proportion that was female ranged from 45 to 60%. The pooled prevalence rate of frailty was high at 59%. The pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.91) versus 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.88) for specificity. Pooled accuracy based on area under the ROC curve was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90). Although few studies were found, limiting the ability to conduct a meta-analysis of individual instruments, available frailty screens can accurately diagnose frailty in older adults attending the ED. As specificity was comparatively low, additional assessment may be required to identify those requiring inpatient management or onward community referral. Further study is therefore required.

Screening for Cognitive Impairment with the Quick Memory Check: Validation of a Caregiver Administered Cognitive Screen.

BACKGROUND: Self or home-administered cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) can reduce barriers to the early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. OBJECTIVE: To examine the acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a caregiver-administered CSI, the Quick Memory Check (QMC). METHODS: Components of the Quick Mild Cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen (orientation, verbal fluency, and logical memory) were re-weighted to create the QMC, scored out of 100 points. Participants, attending a university hospital memory clinic, were provided administration instructions beforehand. Area under the curve (AUC) scores, adjusted for age and education, were compared with the Qmci screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Caregivers or family scored the QMC. RESULTS: In all, 366 participants were recruited; 53 with subjective memory complaints (SMC), 74 with MCI, 193 with dementia, and 46 normal controls. Median QMC scores for controls were 70±13 versus 60±20 for SMC, 52±18 for MCI, and 31±21 for dementia. The QMC had excellent accuracy (AUC 0.97) for cognitive impairment (MCI/dementia from controls), similar to the Qmci screen (AUC 0.98, p = 0.17) and MoCA (AUC 0.95, p = 0.13). At a cut-off of <52/100, the QMC had 83% sensitivity and 100% specificity for cognitive impairment. The QMC had lower accuracy differentiating MCI from SMC (AUC 0.73), albeit similar to the MoCA (AUC 0.70). CONCLUSION: The QMC, administered by caregivers in advance of clinic, compared favorably to established CSIs scored by trained raters. This caregiver, home-administered CSI is acceptable and can identify cognitive impairment, potentially improving efficiency by reducing testing time and patient stress in busy clinical settings.

The Experience of COVID-19 Visitor Restrictions among Families of People Living in Long-Term Residential Care Facilities during the First Wave of the Pandemic in Ireland.

Public health responses to COVID-19 in long-term residential care facilities (LTRCFs) have restricted family engagement with residents. These restrictions impact on quality of care and the psychosocial and emotional well-being of family caregivers. Following a national cross-sectional web-based survey, respondents were invited to provide personal reflections on visitor restrictions. This study aims to describe the consequences of these restrictions for individuals living in LTRCF and their families during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from open-ended questions contained within the survey were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) method of thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: 1. Altered Communication and Connection; 2. Emotional and Psychological Impact; 3. Protecting and Caring Role of Staff; 4. Family Role. Throughout the narrative accounts, it is evident that the visitor restrictions impacted on the emotional and mental well-being of families. Some respondents expressed frustration that they could not assist staff in essential care provision, reducing meaning and purpose in their own lives. COVID-19 LTRCF visitor restrictions made little distinction between those providing essential personal care and those who visit for social reasons. A partnership approach to care provision is important and should encompass strategies to maintain the psychosocial and emotional well-being of families and their relatives during times of self-isolating or restrictive measures.

The Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinimetric Properties of Screening Instruments to Identify Frail Older Adults Attending Emergency Departments: A Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prompt and efficient identification and stratification of patients who are frail is important, as this cohort are at high risk of adverse healthcare outcomes. Numerous frailty screening tools have been developed to support their identification across different settings, yet relatively few have emerged for use in emergency departments (EDs). This protocol provides details for a systematic review aiming to synthesize the accumulated evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy and clinimetric properties of frailty screening instruments to identify frail older adults in EDs. METHODS: Six electronic databases will be searched from January 2000 to March 2021. Eligible studies will include adults aged ≥60 years screened in EDs with any available screening instrument to identify frailty (even if not originally designed for this purpose). Studies, including case-control, longitudinal, and cohort studies, will be included, where instruments are compared to a reference standard to explore diagnostic accuracy. Predictive accuracy for a selection of outcomes, including mortality, institutionalization, and readmission, will be assessed. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity will be examined, and a random effects meta-analysis performed if appropriate. CONCLUSION: Understanding whether frailty screening on presentation to EDs is accurate in identifying frailty, and predicting these outcomes is important for decision-making and targeting appropriate management.

Early identification of frailty: Developing an international delphi consensus on pre-frailty.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with a prodromal stage called pre-frailty, a potentially reversible and highly prevalent intermediate state before frailty becomes established. Despite being widely-used in the literature and increasingly in clinical practice, it is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus on the construct and approaches to diagnose and manage pre-frailty. METHODS: We conducted a modified (electronic, two-round) Delphi consensus study. The questionnaire included statements concerning the concept, aspects and causes, types, mechanism, assessment, consequences, prevention and management of pre-frailty. Qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were employed. An agreement level of 70% was applied. RESULTS: Twenty-three experts with different backgrounds from 12 countries participated. In total, 70 statements were circulated in Round 1. Of these, 52.8% were accepted. Following comments, 51 statements were re-circulated in Round 2 and 92.1% were accepted. It was agreed that physical and non-physical factors including psychological and social capacity are involved in the development of pre-frailty, potentially adversely affecting health and health-related quality of life. Experts considered pre-frailty to be an age-associated multi-factorial, multi-dimensional, and non-linear process that does not inevitably lead to frailty. It can be reversed or attenuated by targeted interventions. Brief, feasible, and validated tools and multidimensional assessment are recommended to identify pre-frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus suggests that pre-frailty lies along the frailty continuum. It is a multidimensional risk-state associated with one or more of physical impairment, cognitive decline, nutritional deficiencies and socioeconomic disadvantages, predisposing to the development of frailty. More research is needed to agree an operational definition and optimal management strategies.

Frailty Screening in the Emergency Department: Comparing the Variable Indicative of Placement Risk, Clinical Frailty Scale and PRISMA-7.

Prompt recognition of frailty in the emergency department (ED) is important to identify patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Despite this, few studies examine the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments for frailty, instead focusing on predictive validity. We compared three commonly used, short frailty screens to an independent comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in an urban University Hospital ED. Consecutive attendees aged ≥70 years were screened by trained raters, blind to the CGA, with the Variable Indicative of Placement risk (VIP), 3 and 4-item versions, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and PRISMA-7. Accuracy was measured from the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). In total, 197 patients were included, median age 79 (±10); 46% were female. Half (49%) were confirmed as frail after CGA. All instruments differentiated frail from non-frail states, although the CFS (AUROC: 0.91) and PRISMA-7 (AUROC: 0.90) had higher accuracy compared to the VIP-4 (AUROC: 0.84) and VIP-3 (AUROC: 0.84). The CFS was significantly more accurate than the VIP-3 (p = 0.026) or VIP-4 (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference between the CFS and PRISMA-7 (p = 0.90). The CFS and PRISMA-7 were more accurate and should be considered in preference to the VIP (3 or 4-item versions) to identify frailty in EDs.

The relationship between frailty and diabetes: An investigation of self-rated health, depression symptoms and quality of life in the Study of Health Aging and Retirement in Europe.

AIMS: To assess the impact of diabetes and frailty on self-rated health, depressive symptoms and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Data were pooled for participants aged ≥50 years from five waves of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Measures included diabetes (self-reported), physical frailty (≥3/5 criteria), low self-rated health (SRH; "poor" or "fair"), depression (screened using the EURO-D ≥4) and low QoL (CASP-12 <35). Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Participants with diabetes (n=11,661/97,691) were more likely to be older (68 vs. 64 years, p<0.001), male (50% vs. 45%, p<0.001) and frail (21% vs. 8%, p<0.001). Age, sex, diabetes and frailty were all independently associated with low SRH, depression and low QoL. Frailty had the highest adjusted odds ratios for low SRH (9.43; 95% CI:8.89-10.02), depression (6.39; 95% CI:6.07-6.71) and low QoL (9.65; 95% CI:9.17-10.16). For diabetes, the adjusted odds ratios were 2.82 (2.70-2.95), 1.49 (1.42-1.56) and 1.67 (1.60-1.74), respectively. Participants with both diabetes and frailty reported the worst self-rated health, the most depression symptoms and the lowest QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was prevalent in older people with diabetes and independently associated with low self-rated health, depressive symptoms and low QoL. Prompt identification and management of frailty should be a key consideration in diabetes care.

Comparison of the Greek Version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen and Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination.

INTRODUCTION: Short cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) are widely used to stratify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is a new, brief (<5mins) CSI designed to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which can be used across the spectrum of cognitive decline. Here we present the translation of the Qmci into Greek (Qmci-Gr) and its validation against the widely-used Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). METHODS: Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years presenting with cognitive complaints were recruited from two outpatient clinics in Greece. All patients completed the Qmci-Gr and SMMSE and underwent an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment to determine a diagnostic classification. RESULTS: In total, 140 patients, median age 75 years, were included; 30 with mild dementia (median SMMSE 23/30), 76 with MCI and 34 with subjective memory complaints (SMC) but normal cognition. The Qmci-Gr had similar accuracy in differentiating SMC from cognitive impairment (MCI & mild dementia) compared with SMMSE, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 versus 0.79, respectively; while accuracy was higher for the Qmci-Gr, this finding was not significantly different, (p = .19). Similarly, the Qmci-Gr had similar accuracy in separating SMC from MCI, AUC of 0.79 versus 0.73 (p = .23). CONCLUSIONS: The Qmci-Gr compared favorably with the SMMSE. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed to confirm these findings but given its established brevity, it may be a better choice in busy clinical practice in Greece.

Prevalence of frailty in 62 countries across the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level studies.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11-13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22-26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45-48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46-52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14-17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10-12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24-35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16-24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5-9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22-26%; n = 44) for FIs. CONCLUSIONS: Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.

The Impact of and Interaction between Diabetes and Frailty on Psychosocial Wellbeing and Mortality in Ireland.

Frailty in middle-aged and older adults is associated with diabetes-related complications. The impact of and interaction between diabetes and frailty on psychosocial wellbeing and mortality in Ireland for adults aged ≥50 years were assessed using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Measures included diabetes status (self-reported), frailty phenotype (≥3/5 criteria), low self-rated health ("fair" or "poor"), depression screening (EURO-D index score ≥4), and low quality of life (QoL) (CASP-12 index score < 35). Among the 970 participants, those with diabetes (n = 87) were more likely to be frail (23% vs. 8%; p < 0.001), have low self-rated health (46% vs. 19%; p < 0.001), depression (25% vs. 17%; p = 0.070), and low QoL (25% vs. 18%, p = 0.085). Adjusting for diabetes, age and sex, frailty independently predicted low self-rated health (OR: 9.79 (5.85-16.36)), depression (9.82 (5.93-16.25)), and low QoL (8.52 (5.19-13.97)). Adjusting for frailty, age and sex, diabetes independently predicted low self-rated health (2.70 (1.63-4.47)). The age-sex adjusted mortality hazard ratio was highest for frailty with diabetes (4.67 (1.08-20.15)), followed by frailty without diabetes (2.86 (1.17-6.99)) and being non-frail with diabetes (1.76 (0.59-5.22)). Frailty independently predicts lower self-reported wellbeing and is associated with reduced survival, underpinning its role as an integral part of holistic diabetes care.

Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 Nursing Home Restrictions on Visitors of Residents With Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional Study as Part of the Engaging Remotely in Care (ERiC) Project.

Background: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected older people. Visiting restrictions introduced since the start of the pandemic in residential care facilities (RCFs) may impact negatively on visitors including close family, friends, and guardians. We examined the effects of COVID-19 visiting restrictions on measures of perceived loneliness, well-being, and carer quality of life (QoL) amongst visitors of residents with and without cognitive impairment (CI) in Irish RCFs. Methods: We created a cross-sectional online survey. Loneliness was measured with the UCLA brief loneliness scale, psychological well-being with the WHO-5 Well-being Index and carer QoL with the Adult Carer QoL Questionnaire (support for caring subscale). Satisfaction with care ("increased/same" and "decreased") was measured. A history of CI was reported by respondents. Sampling was by convenience with the link circulated through university mail lists and targeted social media accounts for 2 weeks in June 2020. Results: In all, 225 responses were included of which 202 noted whether residents had reported CI. Most of the 202 identified themselves as immediate family (91%) and as female (82%). The majority (67%) were aged between 45 and 64 years. Most (80%) reported that their resident had CI. Approximately one-third indicated reduced satisfaction (27%) or that restrictions had impaired communication with nursing home staff (38%). Median loneliness scores were 4/9, well-being scores 60/100 and carer QoL scores 10/15. Visitors of those with CI reported significantly lower well-being (p = 0.006) but no difference in loneliness (p = 0.114) or QoL (p = 0.305). Reported CI (p = 0.04) remained an independent predictors of lower WHO-5 scores, after adjusting for age, sex, RCF location, and dementia stage (advanced), satisfaction with care (reduced), and perception of staff support measured on the Adult Carer QoL Questionnaire. Conclusion: This survey suggests that many RCF visitors experienced low psychosocial and emotional well-being during the COVID-19 lockdown. Visitors of residents with CI report significantly poorer well-being as measured by the WHO-5 than those without. Additional research is required to understand the importance of disrupted caregiving roles resulting from visiting restrictions on well-being, particularly on visitors of residents with CI and how RCFs and their staff can support visitors to mitigate these.

Assessing Global Frailty Scores: Development of a Global Burden of Disease-Frailty Index (GBD-FI).

Frailty is an independent age-associated predictor of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, many countries lack population estimates with large heterogeneity between studies. No population-based standardised metric for frailty is available. We applied the deficit accumulation model of frailty to create a frailty index (FI) using population-level estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study across 195 countries to create a novel GBD frailty index (GBD-FI). Standard FI criteria were applied to all GBD categories to select GBD-FI items. Content validity was assessed by comparing the GBD-FI with a selection of established FIs. Properties including the rate of deficit accumulation with age were examined to assess construct validity. Linear regression models were created to assess if mean GBD-FI scores predicted one-year incident mortality. From all 554 GBD items, 36 were selected for the GBD-FI. Face validity against established FIs was variable. Characteristic properties of a FI-higher mean score for females and a deficit accumulation rate of approximately 0.03 per year, were observed. GBD-FI items were responsible for 19% of total Disability-Adjusted Life Years for those aged ≥70 years in 2017. Country-specific mean GBD-FI scores ranged from 0.14 (China) to 0.19 (Hungary) and were a better predictor of mortality from non-communicable diseases than age, gender, Healthcare Access and Quality Index or Socio-Demographic Index scores. The GBD-FI is a valid measure of frailty at population-level but further external validation is required.

The effectiveness of intermediate care including transitional care interventions on function, healthcare utilisation and costs: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intermediate care describes services, including transitional care, that support the needs of middle-aged and older adults during care transitions and between different settings. This scoping review aimed to examine the effectiveness of intermediate care including transitional care interventions for middle-aged and older adults on function, healthcare utilisation, and costs. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature was conducted including studies published between 2002 and 2019 with a transitional care and/or intermediate care intervention for adults aged ≥ 50. Searches were performed in CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Open Grey and PubMed databases. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed for data synthesis. RESULTS: In all, 133 studies were included. Interventions were grouped under four models of care: (a) Hospital-based transitional care (n = 8), (b) Transitional care delivered at discharge and up to 30 days after discharge (n = 70), (c) Intermediate care at home (n = 41), and (d) Intermediate care delivered in a community hospital, care home or post-acute facility (n = 14). While these models were associated with a reduced hospital stay, this was not universal. Intermediate including transitional care services combined with telephone follow-up and coaching support were reported to reduce short and long-term hospital re-admissions. Evidence for improved ADL function was strongest for intermediate care delivered by an interdisciplinary team with rehabilitation at home. Study design and types of interventions were markedly heterogenous, limiting comparability. CONCLUSIONS: Although many studies report that intermediate care including transitional care models reduce hospital utilisation, results were mixed. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of these services on function, institutionalisation, emergency department attendances, or on cost-effectiveness.

Defining the characteristics of intermediate care models including transitional care: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Although there is growing utilisation of intermediate care to improve the health and well-being of older adults with complex care needs, there is no international agreement on how it is defined, limiting comparability between studies and reducing the ability to scale effective interventions. AIM: To identify and define the characteristics of intermediate care models. METHODS: A scoping review, a modified two-round electronic Delphi study involving 27 multi-professional experts from 13 countries, and a virtual consensus meeting were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-six records were included in the scoping review, which identified four main themes: transitions, components, benefits and interchangeability. These formed the basis of the first round of the Delphi survey. After Round 2, 16 statements were agreed, refined and collapsed further. Consensus was established for 10 statements addressing the definitions, purpose, target populations, approach to care and organisation of intermediate care models. DISCUSSION: There was agreement that intermediate care represents time-limited services which ensure continuity and quality of care, promote recovery, restore independence and confidence at the interface between home and acute services, with transitional care representing a subset of intermediate care. Models are best delivered by an interdisciplinary team within an integrated health and social care system where a single contact point optimises service access, communication and coordination. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key defining features of intermediate care to improve understanding and to support comparisons between models and studies evaluating them. More research is required to develop operational definitions for use in different healthcare systems.