Application of an Electronic Frailty Index to Identify High-Risk Older Adults Using Electronic Health Record Data

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19389
Bharati Kochar, David Cheng, Hanna-Riikka Lehto, Nelia Jain, Elizabeth Araka, Christine S. Ritchie, Rachelle Bernacki, Ariela R. Orkaby
{"title":"Application of an Electronic Frailty Index to Identify High-Risk Older Adults Using Electronic Health Record Data","authors":"Bharati Kochar,&nbsp;David Cheng,&nbsp;Hanna-Riikka Lehto,&nbsp;Nelia Jain,&nbsp;Elizabeth Araka,&nbsp;Christine S. Ritchie,&nbsp;Rachelle Bernacki,&nbsp;Ariela R. Orkaby","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Measurement of frailty is limited in clinical practice. Existing electronic frailty indices (eFIs) are derived from routine primary care encounters, with near-complete health condition capture. We aimed to develop an eFI from routinely collected clinical data and evaluate its performance in older adults without complete health condition capture.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Using Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from an integrated regional health system, we created a cohort of patients who were ≥ 60 years on January 1, 2017 with two outpatient encounters in 3 years prior or one outpatient encounter in 2 years prior. We developed an eFI based on 31 age-related deficits identified using diagnostic and procedure codes. Frailty status was categorized as robust (eFI &lt; 0.1), prefrail (0.1–0.2), frail (0.2–0.3), and very frail (&gt; 0.3). We estimated cumulative incidence of mortality, acute care visits and readmissions by frailty, and fit Cox proportional hazards models. We repeated analyses in a sub-cohort of patients who receive primary care in the system.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 518,449 patients, 43% were male with a mean age of 72 years; 73% were robust, 16% were pre-frail, 7% were frail, and 4% were very frail. Very frail older adults had a significantly higher risk for mortality (HR: 4.1, 95% CI: 4.0–4.3), acute care visits (HR: 5.5, 95% CI: 5.4–5.6), and 90-day readmissions (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 2.1–2.2) than robust older adults. In a primary care sub-cohort, while prevalence of deficits was higher, associations with outcomes were similar.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This eFI identified older adults at increased risk for adverse health outcomes even when data from routine primary care visits were not available. This tool can be integrated into EHRs for frailty assessment at scale.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"73 5","pages":"1491-1497"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19389","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Measurement of frailty is limited in clinical practice. Existing electronic frailty indices (eFIs) are derived from routine primary care encounters, with near-complete health condition capture. We aimed to develop an eFI from routinely collected clinical data and evaluate its performance in older adults without complete health condition capture.

Methods

Using Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from an integrated regional health system, we created a cohort of patients who were ≥ 60 years on January 1, 2017 with two outpatient encounters in 3 years prior or one outpatient encounter in 2 years prior. We developed an eFI based on 31 age-related deficits identified using diagnostic and procedure codes. Frailty status was categorized as robust (eFI < 0.1), prefrail (0.1–0.2), frail (0.2–0.3), and very frail (> 0.3). We estimated cumulative incidence of mortality, acute care visits and readmissions by frailty, and fit Cox proportional hazards models. We repeated analyses in a sub-cohort of patients who receive primary care in the system.

Results

Among 518,449 patients, 43% were male with a mean age of 72 years; 73% were robust, 16% were pre-frail, 7% were frail, and 4% were very frail. Very frail older adults had a significantly higher risk for mortality (HR: 4.1, 95% CI: 4.0–4.3), acute care visits (HR: 5.5, 95% CI: 5.4–5.6), and 90-day readmissions (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 2.1–2.2) than robust older adults. In a primary care sub-cohort, while prevalence of deficits was higher, associations with outcomes were similar.

Conclusions

This eFI identified older adults at increased risk for adverse health outcomes even when data from routine primary care visits were not available. This tool can be integrated into EHRs for frailty assessment at scale.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子衰弱指数在使用电子健康记录数据识别高风险老年人中的应用
背景:虚弱的测量在临床实践中是有限的。现有的电子虚弱指数(eFIs)来自常规的初级保健就诊,几乎完全捕获了健康状况。我们的目标是根据常规收集的临床数据开发eFI,并评估其在没有完全健康状况捕获的老年人中的表现。方法:使用来自综合区域卫生系统的电子健康记录(EHR)数据,我们创建了一个2017年1月1日年龄≥60岁的患者队列,这些患者在3年前有2次门诊就诊,或在2年前有1次门诊就诊。我们基于使用诊断和程序代码确定的31个年龄相关缺陷开发了eFI。虚弱状态被分类为健壮(eFI 0.3)。我们估计了累积死亡率、急诊就诊和虚弱再入院率,并拟合了Cox比例风险模型。我们在接受该系统初级保健的患者亚队列中重复分析。结果:518449例患者中,男性占43%,平均年龄72岁;73%强健,16%体弱,7%体弱,4%非常体弱。与健康的老年人相比,非常虚弱的老年人的死亡率(HR: 4.1, 95% CI: 4.0-4.3)、急诊就诊(HR: 5.5, 95% CI: 5.4-5.6)和90天再入院(HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 2.1-2.2)的风险明显更高。在初级保健亚队列中,虽然缺陷的患病率较高,但与结果的关联相似。结论:即使没有常规初级保健访问的数据,该eFI也确定了老年人不良健康结果风险增加。该工具可以集成到电子病历中,进行大规模的脆弱性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
504
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.
期刊最新文献
NOTICES Cover A Thank You to JAGS Reviewers The Role of Brain Structure in Explaining Physical Functioning in Male Veterans With Impaired Kidney Function Sensorimotor Impairment and Incident Dementia in the US Medicare Beneficiaries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1