Key result
The Hospital Frailty Risk Score was unable to discriminate for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.506; 95% CI 0.502-0.511) but discriminated for prolonged hospital stay (AUC 0.666; 95% CI 0.661-0.673).
Why the study?
Does the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) correlate with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frailty Index (FI) and predict frailty-related outcomes in hospitalized home care clients aged 65+?
Cohort (n=167,316)
Yes
Does the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) correlate with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frailty Index (FI) and predict frailty-related outcomes in hospitalized home care clients aged 65+?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.506 (95% CI 0.502-0.511)
The Hospital Frailty Risk Score identifies a different subset of frail older adults compared to the CFS and FI, and predicts prolonged hospital stay but not short-term mortality.
HFRS should not guide 30-day mortality risk assessment in hospitalized older adults; leaves open its utility for length-of-stay prediction versus CFS/FI.
BACKGROUND: The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is scored using ICD-10 diagnostic codes in administrative hospital records. Home care clients in Canada are routinely assessed with Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) which can calculate the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and the Frailty Index (FI). OBJECTIVE: Measure the correlation between the HFRS, CFS and FI and compare prognostic utility for frailty-related outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: Home care clients aged 65+ admitted to hospital within 180 days (median 65 days) of a RAI-HC assessment (n = 167,316). METHODS: Correlation between the HFRS, CFS and FI was measured using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Prognostic utility of each measure was assessed by comparing measures of association, discrimination and calibration for mortality (30 days), prolonged hospital stay (10+ days), unplanned hospital readmission (30 days) and long-term care admission (1 year). RESULTS: The HFRS was weakly correlated with the FI (ρ 0.21) and CFS (ρ 0.28). Unlike the FI and CFS, the HFRS was unable to discriminate for 30-day mortality (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) 0.506; confidence interval (CI) 0.502-0.511). It was the only measure that could discriminate for prolonged hospital stay (AUC 0.666; CI 0.661-0.673). The HFRS operated like the FI and CFI when predicting unplanned readmission (AUC 0.530 CI 0.526-0.536) and long-term care admission (AUC 0.600; CI 0.593-0.606). CONCLUSIONS: The HFRS identifies a different subset of older adult home care clients as frail than the CFS and FI. It has prognostic utility for several frailty-related outcomes in this population, except short-term mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turcotte et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Frailty (n=167,316). Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) vs. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frailty Index (FI) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (AUC 0.506, 95% CI 0.502-0.511). The Hospital Frailty Risk Score was unable to discriminate for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.506; 95% CI 0.502-0.511) but discriminated for prolonged hospital stay (AUC 0.666; 95% CI 0.661-0.673).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: