No abstract

BackgroundFew empirical studies support a bio-psycho-social conceptualization of frailty. In addition to physical frailty (PF), we explored mental (MF) and social (SF) frailty and studied the associations between multidimensional frailty and various adverse health outcomes.MethodsCross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted using data from a population-based cohort (SLAS-1) of 2387 community-dwelling Singaporean Chinese older adults. Outcomes examined were functional and severe disability, nursing home referral and mortality. PF was defined by shrinking, weakness, slowness, exhaustion and physical inactivity, 1–2 = pre-frail, 3–5 = frail; MF was defined by ≥1 of cognitive impairment, low mood and poor self-reported health; SF was defined by ≥2 of living alone, no education, no confidant, infrequent social contact or help, infrequent social activities, financial difficulty and living in low-end public housing.ResultsThe prevalence of any frailty dimension was 63.0%, dominated by PF (26.2%) and multidimensional frailty (24.2%); 7.0% had all three frailty dimensions. With a few exceptions, frailty dimensions share similar associations with many socio-demographic, lifestyle, health and behavioral factors. Each frailty dimension varied in showing independent associations with functional (Odds Ratios [ORs] = 1.3–1.8) and severe disability prevalence at baseline (ORs = 2.2–7.3), incident functional disability (ORs = 1.1–1.5), nursing home referral (ORs = 1.5–3.4) and mortality (Hazard Ratios = 1.3–1.5) after adjusting for age, gender, medical comorbidity and the two other frailty dimensions. The addition of MF and SF to PF incrementally increased risk estimates by more than 2 folds.ConclusionsThis study highlights the relevance and utility of PF, MF and SF individually and together. Multidimensional frailty can better inform policies and promote the use of targeted multi-domain interventions tailored to older adults’ frailty statuses.

Background: While frailty status is an attractive risk stratification tool, the evaluation of frailty in acute care can be challenging as some inpatients are unable to complete performance-based tests as part of frailty assessment and some tools may lack discriminative ability and categorize majority of cohorts as "frail". In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of frailty screening with the simple clinical frailty scale (CFS) by different clinicians, and its association with mortality and rehospitalization in a geriatric acute care setting. Methods:This study took place in Geriatric Medicine Department of a General Hospital in Singapore. We analysed records of 314 inpatients aged 70 years and older. At baseline, premorbid frailty was assessed using the CFS of the Canadian Study on Health and Aging. Demographic characteristics and other variables were retrieved from their medical records. Primary outcomes were mortality and rehospitalization during the 6-month follow-up. Survival analysis was used to compare the time to death and rehospitalization among CFS categories (1-4: nonfrail, 5-6: mild-moderate frail, and 7-8: severe frail).Results: CFS showed a high inter-rater reliability when used by different clinicians.In the Cox proportional hazard model controlling for age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, modified severity of illness index, and discharge placements, severe frailty determined by CFS (HR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.01-4.33, P = 0.047) and CFS scores (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05-1.53, P = 0.012) were significantly associated with higher mortality until 6-month postdischarge, but not rehospitalization. Conclusion:Frailty status determined by CFS adds to disease severity and comorbidity in predicting short-term mortality but not rehospitalization in older inpatients who received geriatric acute care in our setting. CFS is reliable and has the potential to be incorporated into routine screening to better identify, communicate, and address frailty in the acute settings.in poor restoration of homeostasis after a stressor event like hospitalization. The prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older adults has been reported to be about 5%, 1 while in acute care settings, the prevalence of frailty among older patients is much higher (50%-80%). [2][3][4] In addition to severity of illness, frailty contributes independently to adverse hospitalization outcomes, 2,5-8 and can be important for prognosis and targeted interventions in acute settings.A number of approaches have been used in practice to operationalize frailty. 9,10 While the gold standard for assessment of frailty involves a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) by a multidisciplinary team, it is a time-consuming complex process. 9,10 In an acute setting, inpatients are unable to complete performance-based tests as part of frailty assessment, and some tools may lack discriminative ability and categorize majority of cohorts as "frail". 2 It is increasingly recognized that different validated frailty assessment tools suit to different settings and pu...