Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 26;22(1):49.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-1953-9.

Feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a systematic review

Richard J Pugh  1 , Amy Ellison  2 , Kate Pye  3 , Christian P Subbe  4 , Chris M Thorpe  5 , Nazir I Lone  6 , Andrew Clegg  7
Affiliations

Feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a systematic review

Richard J Pugh et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: For healthcare systems, an ageing population poses challenges in the delivery of equitable and effective care. Frailty assessment has the potential to improve care in the intensive care setting, but applying assessment tools in critical illness may be problematic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence for the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in critical care.

Methods: Our primary search was conducted in Medline, Medline In-process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science (January 2001 to October 2017). We included observational studies reporting data on feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critical care setting in patients 16 years and older. Feasibility was assessed in terms of timing of evaluation, the background, training and expertise required for assessors, and reliance upon proxy input. Reliability was assessed in terms of inter-rater reliability.

Results: Data from 11 study publications are included, representing 8 study cohorts and 7761 patients. Proxy involvement in frailty assessment ranged from 58 to 100%. Feasibility data were not well-reported overall, but the exclusion rate due to lack of proxy availability ranged from 0 to 45%, the highest rate observed where family involvement was mandatory and the assessment tool relatively complex (frailty index, FI). Conventional elements of frailty phenotype (FP) assessment required modification prior to use in two studies. Clinical staff tended to use a simple judgement-based tool, the clinical frailty scale (CFS). Inter-rater reliability was reported in one study using the CFS and although a good level of agreement was observed between clinician assessments, this was a small and single-centre study.

Conclusion: Though of unproven reliability in the critically ill, CFS was the tool used most widely by critical care clinical staff. Conventional FP assessment required modification for general application in critical care, and an FI-based assessment may be difficult to deliver by the critical care team on a routine basis. There is a high reliance on proxies for frailty assessment, and the reliability of frailty assessment tools in critical care needs further evaluation.

Prospero registration number: CRD42016052073 .

Keywords: Clinical frailty scale; Critical care; Critically ill; Feasibility; Frailty; Frailty Index; Frailty phenotype; Intensive care; Reliability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of included studies [25]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Clinical frailty scale [10]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bagshaw SM, Webb SA, Delaney A, George C, Pilcher D, Hart GK, Bellomo R. Very old patients admitted to intensive care in Australia and New Zealand: a multi-centre cohort analysis. Crit Care. 2009;13(2):R45. doi: 10.1186/cc7768. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ihra GC, Lehberger J, Hochrieser H, Bauer P, Schmutz R, Metnitz B, Metnitz PG. Development of demographics and outcome of very old critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(4):620–6. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2474-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Muscedere J, Waters B, Varambally A, Bagshaw SM, Boyd JG, Maslove D, Sibley S, Rockwood K. The impact of frailty on intensive care unit outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(8):1105–22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4867-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McDermid RC, Stelfox HT, Bagshaw SM. Frailty in the critically ill: a novel concept. Crit Care. 2011;15(1):301. doi: 10.1186/cc9297. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):752–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types