Frailty measurements in hospitalised orthopaedic populations age 65 and older: A scoping review
Issued Date
2022-05-01
Resource Type
ISSN
09621067
eISSN
13652702
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85116402652
Pubmed ID
34622525
Journal Title
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Volume
31
Issue
9-10
Start Page
1149
End Page
1163
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Clinical Nursing Vol.31 No.9-10 (2022) , 1149-1163
Suggested Citation
Roopsawang I., Zaslavsky O., Thompson H., Aree-Ue S., Kwan R.Y.C., Belza B. Frailty measurements in hospitalised orthopaedic populations age 65 and older: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Nursing Vol.31 No.9-10 (2022) , 1149-1163. 1163. doi:10.1111/jocn.16035 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/86799
Title
Frailty measurements in hospitalised orthopaedic populations age 65 and older: A scoping review
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: To identify and compare frailty instruments used with hospitalised orthopaedic patients aged over 65. Background: Frailty predicts clinical events in orthopaedic patients aged over 65. However, the strengths and limitations of different approaches to measuring frailty in this population are rarely discussed. As such, a comprehensive review to address the gap is needed. Design: Scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley framework. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 regarding frailty instruments in older orthopaedic patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed. Results: The initial search resulted in 1,471 articles. After review against inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final set of 31 articles containing 15 unique frailty instruments were evaluated. Most of the articles were from Western countries. Fried's phenotype and Frailty Index were commonly used. The frailty index was mostly modified to measure frailty. In hip fracture, physical function items were frequently modified in the measurement of frailty. Trained physicians and nurses administered most frailty instruments. Frailty screening was commonly conducted at hospital admission and used to prognosticate both postoperative complications and hospital outcomes. Most instruments could be completed within 10 min. Reported psychometrics had acceptable reliability and validity. Conclusion: Many reliable frailty measures have been used in the inpatient orthopaedic settings; however, evidence is still lacking for a gold standard frailty instrument. More research is needed to identify the best-performing measure. Frailty evaluation in patients with physical limitations is challenging with existing instruments. Clinical context, resources required and instrument quality are essential factors in selecting a frailty instrument. Relevance to clinical practice: Musculoskeletal symptoms in older patients may bias frailty assessment. Proactive frailty screening with valid and practical instruments is vital to strengthen preoperative risk stratification and improve post-surgical outcomes.