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
Comparative Study
. 2020 Apr;29(7-8):1064-1073.
doi: 10.1111/jocn.15148. Epub 2020 Jan 20.

Frailty screening in hospitalised older adults: How does the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program perform compared to a more extensive approach?

Ron M J Warnier  1   2   3 , Erik van Rossum  1   4 , Sander M J van Kuijk  5 , Fabienne Magdelijns  2 , Jos M G A Schols  1   6 , Gertrudis I J M Kempen  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Frailty screening in hospitalised older adults: How does the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program perform compared to a more extensive approach?

Ron M J Warnier et al. J Clin Nurs. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Aims and objectives: To examine the predictive properties of the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program for the screening of frail hospitalised older patients (VMS) and to compare these with the more extensive Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP).

Background: Screening of older patients during admission may help to detect frailty and underlying geriatric conditions. The VMS screening assesses patients on four domains (i.e. functional decline, delirium risk, fall risk and nutrition). The 15-item MFST-HP assesses patients on three domains of frailty (physical, social and psychological).

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Methods: Data of 2,573 hospitalised patients (70+) admitted in 2013 were included, and relative risks, sensitivity and specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of the two tools were calculated for discharge destination, readmissions and mortality. The data were derived from the patients nursing files. A STARD checklist was completed.

Results: Different proportions of frail patients were identified by means of both tools: 1,369 (53.2%) based on the VMS and 414 (16.1%) based on the MFST-HP. The specificity was low for the VMS, and the sensitivity was low for the MFST-HP. The overall AUC for the VMS varied from 0.50 to 0.76 and from 0.49 to 0.69 for the MFST-HP.

Conclusion: The predictive properties of the VMS and the more extended MFST-HP on the screening of frailty among older hospitalised patients are poor to moderate and not very promising.

Relevance to clinical practice: The VMS labels a high proportion of older patients as potentially frail, while the MFST-HP labels over 80% as nonfrail. An extended tool did not increase the predictive ability of the VMS. However, information derived from the individual items of the screening tools may help nurses in daily practice to intervene on potential geriatric risks such as delirium risk or fall risk.

Keywords: feasibility; frailty; frailty screening; geriatric assessment; hospitalised patients; nursing assessment; risk screening; safety programme; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Altman, D. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
    1. Ament, B. (2014). Frailty in old age; conceptualization and care innovations. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht University.
    1. Basnet, S., Zhang, M., Lesser, M., Wolf-Klein, G., Qiu, G., Williams, M., … DiMarzio, P. (2018). Thirty-day hospital readmission rate amongst older adults correlates with an increased number of medications, but not with Beers medications. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 18(10), 1513-1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13518
    1. Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., … Cohen, J. F. (2015). STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ, 351, h5527. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5527
    1. Cawood, A. L., Elia, M., Sharp, S. K., & Stratton, R. J. (2012). Malnutrition self-screening by using MUST in hospital outpatients: Validity, reliability, and ease of use. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 96(5), 1000-1007. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.037853

LinkOut - more resources