Emergency Department, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 2, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Research Unit for Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Eur Geriatr Med. 2024 Feb;15(1):105-113. doi: 10.1007/s41999-023-00890-y. Epub 2023 Nov 16.
The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) allows health care providers to quickly stratify older patients, to support clinical decision-making. However, few studies have evaluated the CFS interrater reliability (IRR) in Emergency Departments (EDs), and the freely available smartphone application for CFS assessment was never tested for reliability. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) ratings between experienced and unexperienced staff (ED clinicians and a study team (ST) of medical students supported by a smartphone application to assess the CFS), and to determine the feasibility of CFS assignment in patients aged 65 or older at triage.
Cross-sectional study using consecutive sampling of ED patients aged 65 or older. We compared assessments by ED clinicians (Triage Clinicians (TC) and geriatric ED trained nurses (geriED-TN)) and a study team (ST) of medical students using a smartphone application for CFS scoring. The study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05400707).
We included 1349 patients aged 65 and older. Quadratic-weighted kappa values for ordinal CFS levels showed a good IRR between TC and ST (ϰ = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), similarly to that between TC and geriED-TN (ϰ = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) and between the ST and geriED-TN (ϰ = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.81). A CFS rating was assigned to 972 (70.2%) patients at triage.
We found good IRR in the assessment of frailty with the CFS in different ED providers and a team using a smartphone application to support rating. A CFS assessment occurred in more than two-thirds (70.2%) of patients at triage.
临床虚弱量表(CFS)可使医疗保健提供者快速对老年患者进行分层,以支持临床决策。然而,很少有研究评估 CFS 在急诊科(ED)的评估者间信度(IRR),并且从未对用于 CFS 评估的免费智能手机应用程序进行可靠性测试。本研究旨在评估经验丰富和非经验丰富的人员(ED 临床医生和由智能手机应用程序支持的医学学生研究团队(ST)评估 CFS)之间的 CFS 评分的评估者间信度,并确定在分诊时对 65 岁或以上患者进行 CFS 分配的可行性。
使用 ED 年龄在 65 岁或以上的连续患者进行横断面研究。我们比较了 ED 临床医生(分诊临床医生(TC)和老年 ED 培训护士(geriED-TN))和由智能手机应用程序进行 CFS 评分的医学学生研究团队(ST)的评估。该研究在 Clinicaltrials.gov 上注册(NCT05400707)。
我们纳入了 1349 名年龄在 65 岁及以上的患者。TC 和 ST 之间的 CFS 等级的二次加权kappa 值显示出良好的 IRR(κ=0.73,95%CI 0.69-0.76),与 TC 和 geriED-TN 之间的 IRR(κ=0.75,95%CI 0.66-0.82)和 ST 与 geriED-TN 之间的 IRR(κ=0.74,95%CI 0.63-0.81)相似。在分诊时对 972 名(70.2%)患者进行了 CFS 评分。
我们发现,不同 ED 提供者和使用智能手机应用程序支持评分的团队在使用 CFS 评估虚弱时,IRR 良好。在分诊时,超过三分之二(70.2%)的患者进行了 CFS 评估。