Frailty is the most problematic expression of population ageing. It is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homoeostasis after a stressor event and is a consequence of cumulative decline in many physiological systems during a lifetime. This cumulative decline depletes homoeostatic reserves until minor stressor events trigger disproportionate changes in health status. In landmark studies, investigators have developed valid models of frailty and these models have allowed epidemiological investigations that show the association between frailty and adverse health outcomes. We need to develop more efficient methods to detect frailty and measure its severity in routine clinical practice, especially methods that are useful for primary care. Such progress would greatly inform the appropriate selection of elderly people for invasive procedures or drug treatments and would be the basis for a shift in the care of frail elderly people towards more appropriate goal-directed care.

Background: frailty is an especially problematic expression of population ageing. International guidelines recommend routine identification of frailty to provide evidence-based treatment, but currently available tools require additional resource.Objectives: to develop and validate an electronic frailty index (eFI) using routinely available primary care electronic health record data.Study design and setting: retrospective cohort study. Development and internal validation cohorts were established using a randomly split sample of the ResearchOne primary care database. External validation cohort established using THIN database.Participants: patients aged 65–95, registered with a ResearchOne or THIN practice on 14 October 2008.Predictors: we constructed the eFI using the cumulative deficit frailty model as our theoretical framework. The eFI score is calculated by the presence or absence of individual deficits as a proportion of the total possible. Categories of fit, mild, moderate and severe frailty were defined using population quartiles.Outcomes: outcomes were 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission.Statistical analysis: hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using bivariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was assessed using pseudo-R2 estimates.Results: we include data from a total of 931,541 patients. The eFI incorporates 36 deficits constructed using 2,171 CTV3 codes. One-year adjusted HR for mortality was 1.92 (95% CI 1.81–2.04) for mild frailty, 3.10 (95% CI 2.91–3.31) for moderate frailty and 4.52 (95% CI 4.16–4.91) for severe frailty. Corresponding estimates for hospitalisation were 1.93 (95% CI 1.86–2.01), 3.04 (95% CI 2.90–3.19) and 4.73 (95% CI 4.43–5.06) and for nursing home admission were 1.89 (95% CI 1.63–2.15), 3.19 (95% CI 2.73–3.73) and 4.76 (95% CI 3.92–5.77), with good to moderate discrimination but low calibration estimates.Conclusions: the eFI uses routine data to identify older people with mild, moderate and severe frailty, with robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. Routine implementation of the eFI could enable delivery of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group.

More than half of older cancer patients have pre-frailty or frailty and these patients are at increased risk of chemotherapy intolerance, postoperative complications and mortality. The findings of this review support routine assessment of frailty in older cancer patients to guide treatment decisions, and the development of multidisciplinary geriatric oncology services.

Stroke is associated with a risk of falling at home and affects the lives of patients with stroke and their carers. Falling and fear of falling is an important issue which needs to be dealt with by the multidisciplinary team.

This is a repository copy of Interventions for preventing deliriumin hospitalised non-ICU patients.

Background and Purpose— Development of interventions to manage patients with stroke after discharge from the hospital requires estimates of need. This study estimates the prevalence of self-reported need in community-dwelling stroke survivors across the United Kingdom. Methods— We conducted a survey of stroke survivors 1 to 5 years poststroke recruited through Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework general practices and 2 population-based stroke registers. Levels and type of need were calculated with comparisons among sociodemographic groups, disability level, and cognitive status using the χ 2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Results— From 1251 participants, response rates were 60% (national sample) and 78% (population registers sample) with few differences in levels of reported need between the 2 samples. Over half (51%) reported no unmet needs; among the remainder, the median number of unmet needs was 3 (range, 1 to 13). Proportions reporting unmet clinical needs ranged from 15% to 59%; 54% reported an unmet need for stroke information; 52% reported reduction in or loss of work activities, significantly more from black ethnic groups ( P =0.006); 18% reported a loss in income and 31% an increase in expenses with differences by age, ethnic group, and deprivation score. In multivariable analysis, ethnicity ( P =0.032) and disability ( P =0.014) were associated with total number of unmet needs. Conclusions— Multiple long-term clinical and social needs remain unmet long after incident stroke. Higher levels of unmet need were reported by people with disabilities, from ethnic minority groups, and from those living in the most deprived areas. Development and testing of novel methods to meet unmet needs are required.

No abstract

for people at risk of delirium, avoid new prescriptions of benzodiazepines or consider reducing or stopping these medications where possible. Opioids should be prescribed with caution in people at risk of delirium, but this should be tempered by the observation that untreated severe pain can itself trigger delirium. Caution is also required when prescribing dihydropyridines and antihistamine H1 antagonists for people at risk of delirium and considered individual patient assessment is advocated.