Feasibility and reliability of eFI-CGA predicts three-year outcomes in community-dwelling older adults, indicating its value for primary care.
To aid frailty management in primary care we developed an electronic Frialty Index based on a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (eFI-CGA). Here we report the feasibility, validity, and reliability of the eFI-CGA when conducted in primary care. To assay feasibility, we measured assessment completion rate and time required. We tested validity by analyzing the content and characteristics of the eFI-CGA, its associations with age and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and prediction of three-year adverse outcomes. Reliability was evaluated by having primary care providers and geriatricians independently assess patients at baseline and at six months, yielding inter- and intra-rater estimates, as well as validity compared with a reference standard. Community-dwelling older adults from 27 clinics were enrolled (n = 281; 65% females). The eFI-CGA showed a four-factor structure, including function/mobility, psychological/social, cognition, and physical/medical problems. The eFI-CGA and CFS scores were moderately correlated: r = 0.65 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.56 − 0.72). The age − eFI-CGA correlation (r) was modest (r = 0.22; CI: 0.10 − 0.34). Each 0.01 eFI-CGA increment was associated with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.04 for three-year mortality (CI: 1.02 − 1.06). The eFI-CGA discriminated individuals with an adverse outcome with 75% accuracy (CI: 68%−82%). The eFI-CGA conducted by geriatricians and primary care providers showed comparable characteristics and predictive capacities. Inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were high: 0.91 (CI: 0.84 − 0.94) baseline) and 0.87 (CI: 0.80 − 0.92) follow-up. Intra-rater ICCs were excellent 0.95 (CI: 0.92 − 0.97) for geriatricians and 0.93 (CI: 0.89 − 0.96) for primary care providers. Frailty assessment using the eFI-CGA is feasible, valid, and reliable in primary care settings. Larger studies are needed to evaluate its generalizability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: