TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinician Estimates of Frailty Compared to Formal Frailty Assessment in Adults With Heart Failure
T2 - A Cross-Sectional Analysis
AU - McDonagh, Julee
AU - Prichard, Roslyn
AU - Ferguson, Caleb
AU - Phillips, Jane L.
AU - Davidson, Patricia M.
AU - Macdonald, Peter S.
AU - Newton, Phillip J.
N1 - Funding Information:
JM is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship and received funding to support this research provided by the NSW Ministry of Health under the NSW Health PhD Scholarship Program, co-funded by the University of Technology Sydney . CF is funded through a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (Ref: 102168) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council ( APP1196262 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ)
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - Background: Frailty assessment is recommended for patients with heart failure. Despite the availability of instruments to assess frailty, there are no clear recommendations regarding the optimal instrument to use in a heart failure context. This ambiguity combined with a lack of education and resources, often leads clinicians to rely on subjective estimates of frailty, such as ‘the end-of-the-bed’ or ‘eyeball’ test. Aim: To examine the association between clinician-estimated frailty and formal frailty assessment in adults with heart failure. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the FRAilty MEasurement in Heart Failure (FRAME-HF) study. Participants: (1) Adults aged ≥18 years in the outpatient heart failure clinic and cardiology ward; (2) and cardiovascular clinicians (nurses, physicians, and allied-health professionals). Following participant recruitment, cardiovascular clinicians were asked to rate the participant's frailty status based on their routine clinical assessment as either: frail, pre-frail, or non-frail, which was then compared to a formal frailty assessment using a modified version of the Frailty Phenotype. The association between clinician-estimated frailty and formal frailty assessment were examined using a weighted Kappa statistic and Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 75 patients and 39 clinicians were recruited, producing 194 paired frailty assessments. Mean age of the patients was 54 (±13) years. Correlation of pooled clinician-estimated frailty to formal frailty was fair (0.52, p=0.00). Correlation was highest between allied-health estimated frailty and formal frailty (0.70, p=0.00). Agreement between pooled clinician-estimated frailty and formal frailty was fair (0.33) and was highest between allied health-estimated frailty and formal frailty (0.45). Conclusion: Subjective clinician-estimated frailty is not a reliable replacement for formal frailty assessment in adults with heart failure, underscoring the need for assessment using a valid and reliable instrument.
AB - Background: Frailty assessment is recommended for patients with heart failure. Despite the availability of instruments to assess frailty, there are no clear recommendations regarding the optimal instrument to use in a heart failure context. This ambiguity combined with a lack of education and resources, often leads clinicians to rely on subjective estimates of frailty, such as ‘the end-of-the-bed’ or ‘eyeball’ test. Aim: To examine the association between clinician-estimated frailty and formal frailty assessment in adults with heart failure. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the FRAilty MEasurement in Heart Failure (FRAME-HF) study. Participants: (1) Adults aged ≥18 years in the outpatient heart failure clinic and cardiology ward; (2) and cardiovascular clinicians (nurses, physicians, and allied-health professionals). Following participant recruitment, cardiovascular clinicians were asked to rate the participant's frailty status based on their routine clinical assessment as either: frail, pre-frail, or non-frail, which was then compared to a formal frailty assessment using a modified version of the Frailty Phenotype. The association between clinician-estimated frailty and formal frailty assessment were examined using a weighted Kappa statistic and Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 75 patients and 39 clinicians were recruited, producing 194 paired frailty assessments. Mean age of the patients was 54 (±13) years. Correlation of pooled clinician-estimated frailty to formal frailty was fair (0.52, p=0.00). Correlation was highest between allied-health estimated frailty and formal frailty (0.70, p=0.00). Agreement between pooled clinician-estimated frailty and formal frailty was fair (0.33) and was highest between allied health-estimated frailty and formal frailty (0.45). Conclusion: Subjective clinician-estimated frailty is not a reliable replacement for formal frailty assessment in adults with heart failure, underscoring the need for assessment using a valid and reliable instrument.
KW - Frail elderly
KW - Frailty
KW - Frailty assessment
KW - Frailty instrument
KW - Heart failure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129093101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85129093101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hlc.2022.04.003
DO - 10.1016/j.hlc.2022.04.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 35501244
AN - SCOPUS:85129093101
SN - 1443-9506
VL - 31
SP - 1241
EP - 1246
JO - Heart Lung and Circulation
JF - Heart Lung and Circulation
IS - 9
ER -