External validation of the hospital frailty risk score among hospitalised home care clients in Canada: a retrospective cohort study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Forlagets udgivne version, 745 KB, PDF-dokument

  • Luke Andrew Turcotte
  • George Heckman
  • Kenneth Rockwood
  • Davide Liborio Vetrano
  • Paul Hebert
  • Daniel I. McIsaac
  • Elizabeth Rhynold
  • Lori Mitchell
  • Fabrice Immanuel Mowbray
  • Rasmus T. Larsen
  • John P. Hirdes
Background
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).

Objective
Measure the correlation between the HFRS, CFS and FI and compare prognostic utility for frailty-related outcomes.

Design
Retrospective cohort study.

Setting
Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, Canada.

Subjects
Home care clients aged 65+ admitted to hospital within 180 days (median 65 days) of a RAI-HC assessment (n = 167,316).

Methods
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).

Results
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).

Conclusions
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.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer334
TidsskriftAge and Ageing
Vol/bind52
Udgave nummer2
Antal sider9
ISSN0002-0729
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2023

ID: 337915722