The Prognostic Accuracy of Clinical Judgment Versus a Validated Frailty Screening Instrument in Older Patients at the Emergency Department: Findings of the AmsterGEM Study
Carmen S. van Dam, Marijke C. Trappenburg, Marieke M. ter Wee, Emiel O. Hoogendijk, Riekie de Vet, Yvo M. Smulders, Prabath B. Nanayakkara, Majon Muller, Mike L. Peters
Abstract
Study objectiveTo compare the prognostic accuracy of clinical judgment for frailty in older patients at the emergency department with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty.MethodsA prospective cohort study in patients 70 years of age and older in 2 Dutch EDs with a follow-up of 3 months. A dichotomous question was asked to the physician and patient: “Do you consider the patient / yourself to be frail?” The Identification of Seniors At Risk–Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) was used as a validated screening instrument. The primary composite outcome consisted of either functional decline, institutionalization, or mortality.ResultsA total of 736 patients were included. The physician identified 59% as frail, compared with 49% by ISAR-HP and 43% by patients themselves. The level of agreement was fair (Fleiss Kappa, 0.31). After 3 months, 31% of the patients experienced at least 1 adverse health outcome. The sensitivity was 79% for the physician, 72% for ISAR-HP, 61% for the patient, and 48% for all 3 combined. The specificity was 50% for the physician, 63% for ISAR-HP, 66% for the patient, and 85% for all 3 positive. The highest positive likelihood ratio was 3.03 (physician, ISAR-HP, patient combined), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio was 0.42 (physician). The areas under the receiver operating curves were all poor: 0.68 at best for ISAR-HP.ConclusionClinical judgment for frailty showed fair agreement with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. All 3 instruments have poor prognostic accuracy, which does not improve when combined. These findings illustrate the limited prognostic value of clinical judgment as a frailty screener in older patients at the ED. To compare the prognostic accuracy of clinical judgment for frailty in older patients at the emergency department with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. A prospective cohort study in patients 70 years of age and older in 2 Dutch EDs with a follow-up of 3 months. A dichotomous question was asked to the physician and patient: “Do you consider the patient / yourself to be frail?” The Identification of Seniors At Risk–Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) was used as a validated screening instrument. The primary composite outcome consisted of either functional decline, institutionalization, or mortality. A total of 736 patients were included. The physician identified 59% as frail, compared with 49% by ISAR-HP and 43% by patients themselves. The level of agreement was fair (Fleiss Kappa, 0.31). After 3 months, 31% of the patients experienced at least 1 adverse health outcome. The sensitivity was 79% for the physician, 72% for ISAR-HP, 61% for the patient, and 48% for all 3 combined. The specificity was 50% for the physician, 63% for ISAR-HP, 66% for the patient, and 85% for all 3 positive. The highest positive likelihood ratio was 3.03 (physician, ISAR-HP, patient combined), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio was 0.42 (physician). The areas under the receiver operating curves were all poor: 0.68 at best for ISAR-HP. Clinical judgment for frailty showed fair agreement with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. All 3 instruments have poor prognostic accuracy, which does not improve when combined. These findings illustrate the limited prognostic value of clinical judgment as a frailty screener in older patients at the ED.