Weerasekera Shavini, Reid Natasha, Young Adrienne, Homes Ryan, Sia Aaron, Giddens Fiona, Francis Ross S, Hubbard Ruth E, Gordon Emily H
Geriatrics and Rehabilitation Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Transplant Direct. 2023 Oct 16;9(11):e1548. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001548. eCollection 2023 Nov.
Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment.
A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors.
The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.
临床实践指南建议在肾移植资格评估期间对虚弱程度进行测量。然而,目前尚不清楚在这种情况下如何最好地评估虚弱程度,也不清楚患者是否接受对其进行评估。我们旨在研究在肾移植评估诊所就诊的患者中虚弱指数(FI)评估的结构效度和可行性,并探讨患者对虚弱的看法及其常规评估的可接受性。
为147名诊所患者计算了一个包含58个条目的FI。对29名患者的亚组进行了半结构化访谈。根据FI的规范特征(均值、分布、界限)、年龄和移植后生存预估评分对FI进行验证。使用描述性统计评估可行性。采用反思性主题分析对定性数据进行分析。
FI的均值为0.23(±0.10,正态分布,界限为0.53)。FI随年龄和移植后生存预估评分的增加而升高。62.8%的符合条件患者(147/234)完成了FI评估。完成评估的中位时间为10分钟,完成率(无缺失数据)为100%。确定了四个主题:对虚弱的认知、可接受性、感知到的益处以及虚弱测量的风险。患者将虚弱与年龄和不良后果联系起来,大多数患者不认为自己虚弱。患者报告称FI快速、简单且高效。他们认为虚弱评估与移植资格相关,应用于解决潜在的可逆因素。
FI在本诊所环境中显示出结构效度,且可行且可接受。挑战在于确保常规评估能带来更好的护理。