Ramathibodi School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Clin Nurs. 2022 May;31(9-10):1149-1163. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16035. Epub 2021 Oct 8.
To identify and compare frailty instruments used with hospitalised orthopaedic patients aged over 65.
Frailty predicts clinical events in orthopaedic patients aged over 65. However, the strengths and limitations of different approaches to measuring frailty in this population are rarely discussed. As such, a comprehensive review to address the gap is needed.
Scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley framework.
PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 regarding frailty instruments in older orthopaedic patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed.
The initial search resulted in 1,471 articles. After review against inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final set of 31 articles containing 15 unique frailty instruments were evaluated. Most of the articles were from Western countries. Fried's phenotype and Frailty Index were commonly used. The frailty index was mostly modified to measure frailty. In hip fracture, physical function items were frequently modified in the measurement of frailty. Trained physicians and nurses administered most frailty instruments. Frailty screening was commonly conducted at hospital admission and used to prognosticate both postoperative complications and hospital outcomes. Most instruments could be completed within 10 min. Reported psychometrics had acceptable reliability and validity.
Many reliable frailty measures have been used in the inpatient orthopaedic settings; however, evidence is still lacking for a gold standard frailty instrument. More research is needed to identify the best-performing measure. Frailty evaluation in patients with physical limitations is challenging with existing instruments. Clinical context, resources required and instrument quality are essential factors in selecting a frailty instrument.
Musculoskeletal symptoms in older patients may bias frailty assessment. Proactive frailty screening with valid and practical instruments is vital to strengthen preoperative risk stratification and improve post-surgical outcomes.
确定并比较用于 65 岁以上住院骨科患者的衰弱工具。
衰弱预测 65 岁以上骨科患者的临床事件。然而,很少讨论在该人群中测量衰弱的不同方法的优缺点。因此,需要进行全面审查以解决这一差距。
使用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 框架进行范围审查。
在 PubMed、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Scopus 和 EMBASE 数据库中搜索 2006 年至 2020 年期间发表的关于老年骨科患者衰弱工具的研究。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目。
最初的搜索产生了 1471 篇文章。经过对纳入和排除标准的审查,最终评估了 31 篇包含 15 种独特衰弱工具的文章。大多数文章来自西方国家。常用的是 Fried 表型和衰弱指数。衰弱指数大多被修改用于测量衰弱。在髋部骨折中,身体功能项目经常在测量衰弱时被修改。大多数衰弱工具由经过培训的医生和护士管理。衰弱筛查通常在入院时进行,用于预测术后并发症和住院结局。大多数仪器可在 10 分钟内完成。报告的心理测量学具有可接受的可靠性和有效性。
在住院骨科环境中已经使用了许多可靠的衰弱测量工具;然而,仍然缺乏黄金标准的衰弱工具。需要更多的研究来确定表现最佳的测量工具。现有的工具在评估身体受限患者的衰弱时具有挑战性。临床背景、所需资源和仪器质量是选择衰弱工具的重要因素。
老年患者的肌肉骨骼症状可能会影响衰弱评估。使用有效且实用的仪器进行主动衰弱筛查对于加强术前风险分层和改善术后结果至关重要。