School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University and Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Age Ageing. 2023 Feb 1;52(2). doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac334.
The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is scored using ICD-10 diagnostic codes in administrative hospital records. Home care clients in Canada are routinely assessed with Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) which can calculate the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and the Frailty Index (FI).
Measure the correlation between the HFRS, CFS and FI and compare prognostic utility for frailty-related outcomes.
Retrospective cohort study.
Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, Canada.
Home care clients aged 65+ admitted to hospital within 180 days (median 65 days) of a RAI-HC assessment (n = 167,316).
Correlation between the HFRS, CFS and FI was measured using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Prognostic utility of each measure was assessed by comparing measures of association, discrimination and calibration for mortality (30 days), prolonged hospital stay (10+ days), unplanned hospital readmission (30 days) and long-term care admission (1 year).
The HFRS was weakly correlated with the FI (ρ 0.21) and CFS (ρ 0.28). Unlike the FI and CFS, the HFRS was unable to discriminate for 30-day mortality (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) 0.506; confidence interval (CI) 0.502-0.511). It was the only measure that could discriminate for prolonged hospital stay (AUC 0.666; CI 0.661-0.673). The HFRS operated like the FI and CFI when predicting unplanned readmission (AUC 0.530 CI 0.526-0.536) and long-term care admission (AUC 0.600; CI 0.593-0.606).
The HFRS identifies a different subset of older adult home care clients as frail than the CFS and FI. It has prognostic utility for several frailty-related outcomes in this population, except short-term mortality.
医院衰弱风险评分(HFRS)是根据行政病历中的 ICD-10 诊断代码进行评分的。加拿大的家庭护理客户通常使用居民评估工具-家庭护理(RAI-HC)进行评估,该工具可以计算临床虚弱量表(CFS)和虚弱指数(FI)。
测量 HFRS、CFS 和 FI 之间的相关性,并比较与虚弱相关结局的预后效用。
回顾性队列研究。
加拿大艾伯塔省、不列颠哥伦比亚省和安大略省。
在接受 RAI-HC 评估后 180 天(中位数为 65 天)内住院的 65 岁以上家庭护理客户(n=167316)。
使用 Spearman 相关系数测量 HFRS、CFS 和 FI 之间的相关性。通过比较每种测量方法对死亡率(30 天)、延长住院时间(10 天以上)、无计划住院再入院(30 天)和长期护理入院(1 年)的关联、区分和校准测量值,评估每种测量方法的预后效用。
HFRS 与 FI(ρ 0.21)和 CFS(ρ 0.28)呈弱相关。与 FI 和 CFS 不同,HFRS 无法区分 30 天死亡率(接受者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)0.506;置信区间(CI)0.502-0.511)。它是唯一能够区分延长住院时间的测量方法(AUC 0.666;CI 0.661-0.673)。HFRS 在预测无计划再入院(AUC 0.530 CI 0.526-0.536)和长期护理入院(AUC 0.600;CI 0.593-0.606)方面的表现与 FI 和 CFI 相似。
HFRS 确定了一组不同于 CFS 和 FI 的老年家庭护理客户为虚弱患者。它对该人群中的几个与虚弱相关的结局具有预后效用,除了短期死亡率。