Frailty in Nursing Homes-A Prospective Study Comparing the FRAIL-NH and the Clinical Frailty Scale.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is common in nursing home (NH) residents, but its prevalence in German institutions is unknown. Valid and easy-to-use screening tools are needed to identify frail residents. We used the FRAIL-NH scale and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to (1) obtain the prevalence of frailty, (2) investigate the agreement between both instruments, and (3) evaluate their predictive validity for adverse health events in German NH residents. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: German NH residents (n = 246, age 84 ± 8 years, 67% female). METHODS: Frailty status was categorized according to FRAIL-NH (nonfrail, frail, most frail) and CFS (not frail, mild to moderately frail, severely frail). Agreement between instruments was examined by Spearman correlation, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CI, and sensitivity and specificity using the "most frail" category of FRAIL-NH as reference standard. Adverse health events (death, hospital admissions, falls) were recorded for 12 months, and multivariate cox and logistic regression models calculated. RESULTS: According to FRAIL-NH, 71.1% were most frail, 26.4% frail, and 2.5% nonfrail. According to CFS, 66.3% were severely frail, 26.8% mild to moderately frail, and 6.9% not frail. Both scales correlated significantly (r = 0.78; R2 = 60%). The AUC was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). Using a CFS cutoff of 7 points, sensitivity was 0.90 and specificity 0.92. The frailest groups according to both instruments had an increased risk of death [FRAIL-NH hazard ratio (HR) 2.19, 95% CI 1.21-3.99; CFS HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.43-4.58] and hospital admission [FRAIL-NH odds ratio (OR) 1.95, 95% CI 1.06-3.58; CFS OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.20] compared to less frail residents. The FRAIL-NH predicted recurrent faller status (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23-5.39). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Frailty is highly prevalent in German NH residents. Both instruments show good agreement despite different approaches and are able to predict adverse health outcomes. Based on our findings and because of its simple administration, CFS may be an alternative to FRAIL-NH for assessing frailty in NHs.

Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting.

Malnutrition (MN) is widespread in nursing homes. Sometimes, but not always, nutritional interventions (NIs) are made, and the reasons for or against NIs are unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe these reasons for residents with and without MN according to nurses' subjective judgement and according to objective signs of MN. The nutritional status of 246 nursing home residents was subjectively judged by nurses (MN, at risk of MN, no MN) and objectively assessed by body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL), and low food intake. NIs (enriched meals and/or oral nutritional supplements) were recorded using a standardized questionnaire, and nurses' main reasons for (not) giving NIs were obtained in an open question. Of the residents, 11.0% were subjectively malnourished, and 25.6% were at risk of MN; 32.9% were malnourished according to objective criteria. Overall, 29.7% of the residents received NIs, 70.4% of those with MN as assessed by the nurses, 53.0% of those with objective MN, and 11.0% and 18.0% of non-malnourished residents, respectively. Reasons for NIs most often stated were low intake (47.9%), WL (23.3%), and low BMI (13.7%). Reasons against NIs mostly mentioned were adequate BMI (32.9%) and sufficient intake (24.3%). The lack of NIs for residents with MN was partially-but not always-explained by valid reasons. As residents without MN frequently received NIs, criteria for both MN rating and providing NIs, require closer scrutiny.