东米德兰地区两家神经康复中心住院病人虚弱程度问卷的使用情况--一项横断面队列研究,对住院康复病人出院后 1 年的随访。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1177/14782715241242509
Laura Edwards, Vina Tesorero, Fattaneh Zonouzi, Piera Santullo, Phoebe Owen, Adam L Gordon
{"title":"东米德兰地区两家神经康复中心住院病人虚弱程度问卷的使用情况--一项横断面队列研究,对住院康复病人出院后 1 年的随访。","authors":"Laura Edwards, Vina Tesorero, Fattaneh Zonouzi, Piera Santullo, Phoebe Owen, Adam L Gordon","doi":"10.1177/14782715241242509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty correlates with poor clinical outcomes and is not routinely assessed in neurorehabilitation inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited adults from two neurorehabilitation units. We administered six validated tools for assessing frailty and collected data around length of stay, discharge, readmission and change in rehabilitation outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-eight participants aged between 31 and 84 years were recruited with a range of neurological diagnoses. Frailty prevalence ranged between 23% and 46%, depending on the scale used, with little agreement between tools. Frailty status did not correlate with age, gender, length of stay, discharge destination and rehabilitation outcome measures. One-year readmission was higher in participants rated as frail by the Frail-Non-Disabled Questionnaire, the FRESH-screening questionnaire and the Clinical Frailty Scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Frailty ascertainment was variable depending on the tool used. Three frailty indices predicted readmission rate at 1 year but no other outcome measures. Therefore, frailty tools may have limited utility in this clinical population.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of frailty questionnaires in inpatients in two neurorehabilitation units in the East Midlands - A cross-sectional cohort study with follow-up to 1-year after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Edwards, Vina Tesorero, Fattaneh Zonouzi, Piera Santullo, Phoebe Owen, Adam L Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14782715241242509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty correlates with poor clinical outcomes and is not routinely assessed in neurorehabilitation inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited adults from two neurorehabilitation units. We administered six validated tools for assessing frailty and collected data around length of stay, discharge, readmission and change in rehabilitation outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-eight participants aged between 31 and 84 years were recruited with a range of neurological diagnoses. Frailty prevalence ranged between 23% and 46%, depending on the scale used, with little agreement between tools. Frailty status did not correlate with age, gender, length of stay, discharge destination and rehabilitation outcome measures. One-year readmission was higher in participants rated as frail by the Frail-Non-Disabled Questionnaire, the FRESH-screening questionnaire and the Clinical Frailty Scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Frailty ascertainment was variable depending on the tool used. Three frailty indices predicted readmission rate at 1 year but no other outcome measures. Therefore, frailty tools may have limited utility in this clinical population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715241242509\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715241242509","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景虚弱与较差的临床结果相关,但在神经康复住院环境中并未进行常规评估:我们从两家神经康复中心招募了成年人。方法:我们从两家神经康复中心招募了成年人,使用了六种经过验证的工具来评估虚弱程度,并收集了住院时间、出院情况、再入院情况和康复结果变化的相关数据:我们招募了 78 名年龄在 31 岁至 84 岁之间的参与者,他们被诊断患有各种神经系统疾病。根据所用量表的不同,虚弱发生率介于 23% 和 46% 之间,不同量表之间的差异很小。虚弱状态与年龄、性别、住院时间、出院目的地和康复效果测量结果均无关联。被 "虚弱-非残疾 "问卷、"FRESH-筛查 "问卷和 "临床虚弱量表 "评为虚弱的患者一年后再次入院的比例较高:讨论:根据所用工具的不同,虚弱程度的确定也不尽相同。三种虚弱指数可预测 1 年后的再入院率,但不能预测其他结果指标。因此,虚弱工具在这一临床人群中的实用性可能有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The use of frailty questionnaires in inpatients in two neurorehabilitation units in the East Midlands - A cross-sectional cohort study with follow-up to 1-year after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.

Background: Frailty correlates with poor clinical outcomes and is not routinely assessed in neurorehabilitation inpatient settings.

Methods: We recruited adults from two neurorehabilitation units. We administered six validated tools for assessing frailty and collected data around length of stay, discharge, readmission and change in rehabilitation outcome measures.

Results: Seventy-eight participants aged between 31 and 84 years were recruited with a range of neurological diagnoses. Frailty prevalence ranged between 23% and 46%, depending on the scale used, with little agreement between tools. Frailty status did not correlate with age, gender, length of stay, discharge destination and rehabilitation outcome measures. One-year readmission was higher in participants rated as frail by the Frail-Non-Disabled Questionnaire, the FRESH-screening questionnaire and the Clinical Frailty Scale.

Conclusion: Frailty ascertainment was variable depending on the tool used. Three frailty indices predicted readmission rate at 1 year but no other outcome measures. Therefore, frailty tools may have limited utility in this clinical population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
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