Derivation of a Frailty Index from the interRAI-HC to Assess Frailty among Older Adults Receiving Home Care and Assistance (the “fraXity” Study)

C. Ludwig, C. Busnel
{"title":"Derivation of a Frailty Index from the interRAI-HC to Assess Frailty among Older Adults Receiving Home Care and Assistance (the “fraXity” Study)","authors":"C. Ludwig, C. Busnel","doi":"10.20900/agmr20200013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Today, the value of screening for frailty among older adults is undisputed; to this endeavor, care at-home professionals are the “frailty whistleblowers” of choice. Yet, they need quick at-hand tools for routine use. To this aim, this study proposes a frailty index (FI) directly derived from the interRAI-HC MDS. The FI is used to assess frailty in a panel of home service recipients to document the rate of frailty among types of users. \nMethods: “fraXity” relies on a case-control design comparing community dwelling older adults receiving home care or assistance to peers who do not receive formal home services. The participants (N = 231) received the interRAI-HC at home from trained nurses. MDS data were used to derive a FI by following published guidelines. Regression modeling was used to assess group differences in the outcomes of interest. \nResults: The FI was normally distributed, with a mean of 0.19 (SD 0.10), and a value of 0.46 at the 99th percentile. The effect of age was significant (B = 0.003, 95% CI = (0.001–0.005)). As compared to the control group (FI = 0.14 ± 0.07, m ± SD), the FI was higher among individuals who received assistance (B = 0.04, 95% CI = (0.02–0.07)) and care (B = 0.11, 95% CI = (0.08–0.14)). These differences were adjusted for age. \nConclusions: The results replicate demonstrations of MDS-based FI derivations and support the usefulness of a FI to distinguish different types of home service recipients. The study is a proof of concept supporting the need of a comprehensive assessment of health needs for all individuals who apply for homes services, including those admitted only for assistance. Further work is needed to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of implementing the proposed methodology in homecare practice. \nTrial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03883425, registered on March 20, 2019.","PeriodicalId":72094,"journal":{"name":"Advances in geriatric medicine and research","volume":"27 supp1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in geriatric medicine and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20900/agmr20200013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Today, the value of screening for frailty among older adults is undisputed; to this endeavor, care at-home professionals are the “frailty whistleblowers” of choice. Yet, they need quick at-hand tools for routine use. To this aim, this study proposes a frailty index (FI) directly derived from the interRAI-HC MDS. The FI is used to assess frailty in a panel of home service recipients to document the rate of frailty among types of users. Methods: “fraXity” relies on a case-control design comparing community dwelling older adults receiving home care or assistance to peers who do not receive formal home services. The participants (N = 231) received the interRAI-HC at home from trained nurses. MDS data were used to derive a FI by following published guidelines. Regression modeling was used to assess group differences in the outcomes of interest. Results: The FI was normally distributed, with a mean of 0.19 (SD 0.10), and a value of 0.46 at the 99th percentile. The effect of age was significant (B = 0.003, 95% CI = (0.001–0.005)). As compared to the control group (FI = 0.14 ± 0.07, m ± SD), the FI was higher among individuals who received assistance (B = 0.04, 95% CI = (0.02–0.07)) and care (B = 0.11, 95% CI = (0.08–0.14)). These differences were adjusted for age. Conclusions: The results replicate demonstrations of MDS-based FI derivations and support the usefulness of a FI to distinguish different types of home service recipients. The study is a proof of concept supporting the need of a comprehensive assessment of health needs for all individuals who apply for homes services, including those admitted only for assistance. Further work is needed to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of implementing the proposed methodology in homecare practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03883425, registered on March 20, 2019.
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
由interRAI-HC衍生出虚弱指数以评估接受家居照顾及协助的长者的虚弱程度(“虚弱”研究)
背景:今天,在老年人中筛查虚弱的价值是无可争议的;为了实现这一目标,居家护理专业人员是“虚弱揭发者”的首选。然而,他们需要日常使用的快捷工具。为此,本研究提出了一个直接来源于interRAI-HC MDS的脆弱指数(FI)。FI用于评估家庭服务接受者小组的脆弱性,以记录不同类型用户的脆弱性率。方法:“脆弱性”依赖于病例对照设计,比较社区居住的接受家庭护理或援助的老年人与不接受正式家庭服务的同龄人。参与者(N = 231)在家中接受训练有素的护士的interRAI-HC。MDS数据被用于根据已发布的指南得出FI。回归模型用于评估各组结果的差异。结果:FI呈正态分布,均值为0.19 (SD 0.10),第99百分位值为0.46。年龄的影响显著(B = 0.003, 95% CI =(0.001 ~ 0.005))。与对照组(FI = 0.14±0.07,m±SD)相比,接受辅助(B = 0.04, 95% CI =(0.02-0.07))和护理(B = 0.11, 95% CI =(0.08-0.14))的个体FI更高。这些差异根据年龄进行了调整。结论:结果重复了基于mds的FI衍生的演示,并支持FI区分不同类型家庭服务接受者的有用性。这项研究是一项概念证明,支持需要全面评估所有申请家庭服务的个人的健康需求,包括那些仅为获得援助而入院的人。需要进一步的工作来评估在家庭护理实践中实施所提出的方法的成本效益比。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03883425,注册于2019年3月20日。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Weakness Status is Differentially Associated with Time to Diabetes in Americans Falls and Alzheimer Disease. Meta-Analysis-Based Comparison of Annual Fall Risk between Older Adults with Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment. Sarcopenia as a Preoperative Risk Stratification Tool among Older Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Memory Loss and Missteps: Investigating Fall Risks in Alzheimer's and Dementia Patients.
×
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:481959085
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