Clinician Estimates of Frailty Compared to Formal Frailty Assessment in Adults With Heart Failure: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
- Publisher:
- Elsevier
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Heart Lung and Circulation, 2022, 31, (9), pp. 1241-1246
- Issue Date:
- 2022-09
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-s2.0-S144395062200141X-main.pdf | 247.97 kB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
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.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: