Chiann Ni Thiam, Chin Yik Ooi, Yin Kar Seah, Deik Roy Chuan, Irene Looi, Alan Swee Hock Ch'ng
{"title":"在马来西亚北部的一家三级医院的综合医疗诊所评估虚弱:虚弱量表或临床虚弱量表。","authors":"Chiann Ni Thiam, Chin Yik Ooi, Yin Kar Seah, Deik Roy Chuan, Irene Looi, Alan Swee Hock Ch'ng","doi":"10.1155/2021/7570592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty potentially influences clinicians' decision making on treatment provided they can select the appropriate assessment tools. This study aims to investigate the difference between the FRAIL scale and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in assessing frailty among community-dwelling older adults attending the General Medical Clinic (GMC) in Seberang Jaya Hospital, Penang, Malaysia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of 95 older patients (age ≥ 65) who attended the GMC from 16 December 2019 to 10 January 2020 were reviewed. Frailty was identified using the FRAIL scale and the CFS. Patient characteristics were investigated for their association with frailty and their difference in the prevalence of frailty by the FRAIL scale and CFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CFS identified nonsignificant higher prevalence of frailty compared to the FRAIL scale (21/95; 22.1% vs. 17/95; 17.9%, ratio of prevalence = 1.235, <i>p</i>=0.481). Minimal agreement was found between the FRAIL scale and the CFS (Kappa = 0.272, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Three out of 5 components of the FRAIL scale (resistance, ambulation, and loss of weight) were associated with frailty by the CFS. Higher prevalence of frailty was identified by the CFS in those above 70 years of age. The FRAIL scale identified more patients with frailty in ischaemic heart disease patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient characteristics influenced the choice of the frailty assessment tool. The FRAIL scale and the CFS may complement each other in providing optimized care to older patients who attended the GMC.</p>","PeriodicalId":39066,"journal":{"name":"Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research","volume":"2021 ","pages":"7570592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8356013/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Frailty in the General Medical Clinic of a Tertiary Hospital in Northern Malaysia: The FRAIL Scale or the Clinical Frailty Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Chiann Ni Thiam, Chin Yik Ooi, Yin Kar Seah, Deik Roy Chuan, Irene Looi, Alan Swee Hock Ch'ng\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2021/7570592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty potentially influences clinicians' decision making on treatment provided they can select the appropriate assessment tools. This study aims to investigate the difference between the FRAIL scale and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in assessing frailty among community-dwelling older adults attending the General Medical Clinic (GMC) in Seberang Jaya Hospital, Penang, Malaysia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of 95 older patients (age ≥ 65) who attended the GMC from 16 December 2019 to 10 January 2020 were reviewed. Frailty was identified using the FRAIL scale and the CFS. Patient characteristics were investigated for their association with frailty and their difference in the prevalence of frailty by the FRAIL scale and CFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CFS identified nonsignificant higher prevalence of frailty compared to the FRAIL scale (21/95; 22.1% vs. 17/95; 17.9%, ratio of prevalence = 1.235, <i>p</i>=0.481). Minimal agreement was found between the FRAIL scale and the CFS (Kappa = 0.272, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Three out of 5 components of the FRAIL scale (resistance, ambulation, and loss of weight) were associated with frailty by the CFS. Higher prevalence of frailty was identified by the CFS in those above 70 years of age. The FRAIL scale identified more patients with frailty in ischaemic heart disease patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient characteristics influenced the choice of the frailty assessment tool. The FRAIL scale and the CFS may complement each other in providing optimized care to older patients who attended the GMC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research\",\"volume\":\"2021 \",\"pages\":\"7570592\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8356013/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7570592\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7570592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
背景:如果临床医生能够选择合适的评估工具,虚弱可能会影响他们对治疗的决策。本研究旨在探讨虚弱量表和临床虚弱量表(CFS)在评估在马来西亚槟城雪邦查亚医院(Seberang Jaya Hospital, Penang Jaya)普通医学诊所(GMC)就诊的社区居住老年人的虚弱程度方面的差异。方法:回顾2019年12月16日至2020年1月10日参加GMC的95例老年患者(年龄≥65岁)的病历。使用虚弱量表和CFS来确定虚弱程度。通过虚弱量表和慢性疲劳综合症调查患者特征与虚弱的关系及其在虚弱患病率上的差异。结果:与虚弱量表相比,CFS鉴定出的虚弱患病率无显著性升高(21/95;22.1% vs. 17/95;17.9%,患病率比= 1.235,p=0.481)。虚弱量表和CFS之间存在最小的一致性(Kappa = 0.272, p < 0.001)。虚弱量表的5个组成部分中有3个(阻力、行走和体重减轻)与CFS的虚弱有关。在70岁以上的人群中,CFS发现了更高的虚弱患病率。虚弱量表在缺血性心脏病患者中发现了更多的虚弱患者。结论:患者的特点影响了衰弱评估工具的选择。虚弱量表和CFS可以相互补充,为参加GMC的老年患者提供最佳护理。
Assessing Frailty in the General Medical Clinic of a Tertiary Hospital in Northern Malaysia: The FRAIL Scale or the Clinical Frailty Scale.
Background: Frailty potentially influences clinicians' decision making on treatment provided they can select the appropriate assessment tools. This study aims to investigate the difference between the FRAIL scale and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in assessing frailty among community-dwelling older adults attending the General Medical Clinic (GMC) in Seberang Jaya Hospital, Penang, Malaysia.
Methods: The medical records of 95 older patients (age ≥ 65) who attended the GMC from 16 December 2019 to 10 January 2020 were reviewed. Frailty was identified using the FRAIL scale and the CFS. Patient characteristics were investigated for their association with frailty and their difference in the prevalence of frailty by the FRAIL scale and CFS.
Results: The CFS identified nonsignificant higher prevalence of frailty compared to the FRAIL scale (21/95; 22.1% vs. 17/95; 17.9%, ratio of prevalence = 1.235, p=0.481). Minimal agreement was found between the FRAIL scale and the CFS (Kappa = 0.272, p < 0.001). Three out of 5 components of the FRAIL scale (resistance, ambulation, and loss of weight) were associated with frailty by the CFS. Higher prevalence of frailty was identified by the CFS in those above 70 years of age. The FRAIL scale identified more patients with frailty in ischaemic heart disease patients.
Conclusion: Patient characteristics influenced the choice of the frailty assessment tool. The FRAIL scale and the CFS may complement each other in providing optimized care to older patients who attended the GMC.