James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia.
Helping Hand Aged Care, Tranmere, SA, Australia.
Biol Res Nurs. 2024 Oct;26(4):526-536. doi: 10.1177/10998004241254459. Epub 2024 May 13.
To evaluate the comparability of frailty assessment tools - the electronic frailty index (eFI), retrospective electronic frailty index (reFI), and clinical frailty scale (CFS) - in older residents of care facilities. Data from 813 individuals aged 65 or older, with frailty and co-morbidities, collected between 2022 and 2023, were analysed using various statistical methods. The results showed significant differences in frailty classification among the tools: 78.3% were identified as moderately to severely frail by eFI, 59.6% by reFI, and 92.1% by CFS. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences ( < .05) in their assessments, indicating variability in measurement methods. This study advances the understanding of frailty assessment within aged-care settings, highlighting the differences in the efficacy of these assessment tools. It underscores the challenges in frailty assessments and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of assessment methods to address the diverse facets of frailty in aged care.
评估脆弱性评估工具的可比性——电子脆弱指数(eFI)、回顾性电子脆弱指数(reFI)和临床脆弱性量表(CFS)——在养老院的老年居民中。使用各种统计方法分析了 2022 年至 2023 年间收集的 813 名年龄在 65 岁或以上、患有脆弱性和合并症的个体的数据。结果表明,这些工具之间的脆弱性分类存在显著差异:eFI 识别出 78.3%的人为中度至重度脆弱,reFI 识别出 59.6%的人,CFS 识别出 92.1%的人。统计检验证实了它们评估结果的显著差异(<0.05),表明测量方法存在差异。这项研究增进了对老年护理环境中脆弱性评估的理解,突出了这些评估工具在功效上的差异。它强调了脆弱性评估的挑战,并强调需要不断改进评估方法,以解决老年护理中脆弱性的不同方面。