BACKGROUND: Rapid frailty screening remains problematic in primary care. The diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of several screening instruments has not been sufficiently established. We evaluated the DTA of several screening instruments against two reference standards: Fried's Frailty Phenotype [FP] and the Adelaide Frailty Index [AFI]), a self-reported questionnaire.
METHODS: DTA study within three general practices in South Australia. We randomly recruited 243 general practice patients aged 75+ years. Eligible participants were 75+ years, proficient in English and community-dwelling. We excluded those who were receiving palliative care, hospitalised or living in a residential care facility.We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, Youden Index and AUC for: Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Scale Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC], Polypharmacy [POLY], PRISMA-7 [P7], Reported Edmonton Frail Scale [REFS], Self-Rated Health [SRH] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) against FP [3+ criteria] and AFI [> 0.21].
RESULTS: We obtained valid data for 228 participants, with missing scores for index tests multiply imputed. Frailty prevalence was 17.5% frail, 56.6% pre-frail [FP], and 48.7% frail, 29.0% pre-frail [AFI]. Of the index tests KC (Se: 85.0% [70.2 - 94.3]; Sp: 73.4% [66.5 - 79.6]) and REFS (Se: 87.5% [73.2 - 95.8]; Sp: 75.5% [68.8 - 81.5]), both against FP, showed sufficient diagnostic accuracy according to our pre-specified criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Two screening instruments - the KC and REFS, show the most promise for wider implementation within general practice, enabling a personalised approach to care for older people with frailty.
This article reports the findings of a survey on end-of-life (EOL) care in nursing homes of 18 long-term care experts across 15 countries. The experts were chosen as a convenience-based sample of known experts in each country. The survey was administered in 2016 and included both open-ended responses for defining hospice care, palliative care, and "end of life", and a series of questions related to the following areas—attitudes toward EOL care, current practice and EOL interventions, structure of care, and routine barriers. Overall experts strongly agreed that hospice and palliative care should be available in long-term care facilities and that both are defined by holistic, interdisciplinary approaches using measures of comfort across domains. However, it appears the experts felt that in most countries the reality fell short of what they believed would be ideal care. As a result, experts call for increased training, communication, and access to specialized EOL services within the nursing home.