IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5601-d561124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilisation of a Suite of Screening Tools to Determine Adverse Healthcare Outcomes in an Older Frail Population Admitted to a Community Virtual Ward

Author

Listed:
  • Clare Lewis

    (School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, 123 St Stephen’s Green, Saint Peter’s, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Rónán O’Caoimh

    (Clinical Sciences Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Costello Road, H91 TK33 Galway City, Ireland
    Department of Geriatric Medicine, Mercy University Hospital, Grenville Place, T12 WE28 Cork City, Ireland)

  • Declan Patton

    (School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, 123 St Stephen’s Green, Saint Peter’s, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Tom O’Connor

    (School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, 123 St Stephen’s Green, Saint Peter’s, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Zena Moore

    (School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, 123 St Stephen’s Green, Saint Peter’s, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Linda E. Nugent

    (School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, 123 St Stephen’s Green, Saint Peter’s, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Risk stratification to assess healthcare outcomes among older people is challenging due to the interplay of multiple syndromes and conditions. Different short risk-screening tools can assist but the most useful instruments to predict responses and outcomes following interventions are unknown. We examined the relationship between a suite of screening tools and risk of adverse outcomes (pre-determined clinical ‘decline’ i.e., becoming ‘unstable’ or ‘deteriorating’ at 60–90 days, and institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death at 120 days), among community dwellers (n = 88) after admission to a single-centre, Irish, Community Virtual Ward (CVW). The mean age of patients was 82.8 (±6.4) years. Most were severely frail, with mean Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores of 6.8 ± 1.33. Several instruments were useful in predicting ‘decline’ and other healthcare outcomes. After adjustment for age and gender, higher frailty levels, odds ratio (OR) 3.29, ( p = 0.002), impaired cognition (Mini Mental State Examination; OR 4.23, p < 0.001), lower mobility (modified FIM) (OR 3.08, p < 0.001) and reduced functional level (Barthel Index; OR 6.39, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with clinical ‘decline’ at 90 days. Prolonged (>30 s) TUG times (OR 1.27, p = 0.023) and higher CFS scores (OR 2.29, p = 0.045) were associated with institutionalisation. Only TUG scores were associated with hospitalisation and only CFS, MMSE and Barthel scores at baseline were associated with mortality. Utilisation of a multidimensional suite of risk-screening tools across a range of domains measuring frailty, mobility and cognition can help predict clinical ‘decline’ for an already frail older population. Their association with other outcomes was less useful. A better understanding of the utility of these instruments in vulnerable populations will provide a framework to inform the impact of interventions and assist in decision-making and anticipatory care planning for older patients in CVW models.

Suggested Citation

  • Clare Lewis & Rónán O’Caoimh & Declan Patton & Tom O’Connor & Zena Moore & Linda E. Nugent, 2021. "Utilisation of a Suite of Screening Tools to Determine Adverse Healthcare Outcomes in an Older Frail Population Admitted to a Community Virtual Ward," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5601-:d:561124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5601/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5601/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5601-:d:561124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.