Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-lxvzl Total loading time: 0.57 Render date: 2022-01-21T23:19:53.995Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Examining the relationship between triage acuity and frailty to inform the care of older emergency department patients: Findings from a large Canadian multisite cohort study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2019

Fabrice Mowbray
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Audrey-Anne Brousseau
Affiliation:
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec
Eric Mercier
Affiliation:
Axe Sante des Populations et Pratiques Optimales en Sante, Centre de recherche du CHU de Quebec, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec
Don Melady
Affiliation:
Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Marcel Émond
Affiliation:
Axe Sante des Populations et Pratiques Optimales en Sante, Centre de recherche du CHU de Quebec, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec
Andrew P. Costa*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
*
Correspondence to: Dr. Andrew P. Costa, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Medical Centre, 1280 Main Street West, 2C Area, Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaL8S 4K1; Email: acosta@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Background

The 2016 Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) updates introduced frailty screening within triage to more accurately code frail patients who may deteriorate waiting for care. The relationship between triage acuity and frailty is not well understood, but may help inform which supplemental geriatric assessments are beneficial to support care in the emergency department (ED). Our objectives were to investigate the relationship between triage acuity and frailty, and to compare their associations with a series of patient outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian cohort from a multinational prospective study. Data were collected on ED patients 75 years of age and older from eight ED sites across Canada between November 2009 and April 2012. Triage acuity was assigned using the CTAS, whereas frailty was measured using an ED frailty index. Spearman rank and binary logistic regression were used to examine associations.

Results

A total of 2,153 ED patients were analyzed. No association was found between the CTAS and ED frailty index scores assigned to patients (r = .001; p = 0.99). The ED frailty index was associated with hospital admission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4–1.6), hospital length of stay (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2–1.6), future hospitalization (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.05–1.2), and ED recidivism (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.04–1.2). The CTAS was associated with hospital admission (e.g., CTAS 2 v. 5; OR = 6; 95% CI = 3.3–11.4).

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that frailty and triage acuity are independent but complementary measures. EDs may benefit from comprehensive frailty screening post-triage, as frailty and its associated geriatric syndromes drive outcomes separate from traditional measures of acuity.

Résumé

RésuméContexte

L’Échelle canadienne de triage et de gravité (ECTG) a été mise à jour en 2016 et un nouvel élément de reconnaissance de la fragilité a été intégré au triage afin que les patients fragiles dont l’état est susceptible de se détériorer durant l'attente des soins reçoivent un score plus exact de gravité. On ne connaît pas très bien la relation entre l’évaluation du degré de gravité durant le triage et la fragilité, mais elle permettrait de préciser les évaluations supplémentaires en gériatrie utiles à la prestation de soins au service des urgences (SU). L’étude visait donc à examiner la relation entre l’évaluation du degré de gravité durant le triage et la fragilité, et à comparer les associations établies avec différents résultats cliniques.

Méthode

Il s'agit d'une analyse secondaire de la cohorte canadienne ayant participé à une étude prospective internationale. Des données ont été recueillies sur des patients âgés de 75 ans et plus, examinés dans l'un des 8 SU participants au Canada, entre novembre 2009 et avril 2012. Les scores de gravité ont été accordés selon l'ECTG durant le triage, et la fragilité a été mesurée selon un indice de fragilité appliqué au SU. Les associations ont été évaluées à l'aide de la corrélation de rangs de Spearman et d'une analyse de régression logistique binaire.

Résultats

Ont été analysés, au total, les dossiers de 2153 patients examinés au SU. Aucune association n'a été établie entre les cotes de gravité selon l'ECTG et les scores de l'indice de fragilité utilisé au SU (r = 0,001; p = 0,99). Toutefois, l'indice de fragilité accordé au SU était associé aux hospitalisations (risque relatif approché [RRA] = 1,5; IC à 95% = 1,4–1,6), à la durée du séjour à l'hôpital (RRA = 1,4; IC à 95% = 1,2–1,6), aux hospitalisations ultérieures (RRA = 1,1; IC à 95% = 1,05–1,2) et aux nouvelles consultations au SU (RRA = 1,1; IC à 95% = 1,04–1,2). Quant à l'ECTG, elle était associée aux hospitalisations (p. ex. score de 2 contre 5 sur l'ECTG : RRA = 6; IC à 95% = 3,3–11,4).

Conclusion

D'après les résultats de l’étude, la fragilité et l’évaluation du degré de gravité durant le triage sont des mesures indépendantes mais complémentaires. Aussi une recherche approfondie de la fragilité après le triage pourrait-elle se révéler utile dans les SU, puisque la fragilité et les syndromes gériatriques connexes produisent des résultats cliniques indépendants de ceux associés aux mesures habituelles du degré de gravité.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2019

CLINICIAN CAPSULE

What is known about the topic?

The 2016 Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale updates introduced frailty as a level 3 first-order modifier to up-code frail patients with non-urgent presentations.

What did this study ask?

Is there a relationship between triage acuity and frailty, and are these measures associated with the same patient outcomes?

What did this study find?

Triage acuity and frailty are independent measures and are associated with different outcomes.

Why does this study matter to clinicians?

Comprehensive frailty assessment post-triage may further identify at-risk seniors that can benefit from additional geriatric assessment, intervention, and resources.

INTRODUCTION

The demographic shift has resulted in an increase of older adults seeking health care, with emergency departments (ED) acting as a conduit and a common access point for older people in search of medical attention.Reference Roberts, McKay and Shaffer1,Reference Hwang and Morrison2 As a result, EDs are counted upon to modify traditional models of care to meet the unique physical and psychosocial needs of older adults, who frequently present for care.Reference Perry, Macias Tejada and Melady3,Reference Carpenter, Bromley and Caterino4 The complexity of older ED patients warrants the need to identify those at risk for poor patient outcomes. Frailty screening has been proposed as a strategy to achieve this goal.Reference Carpenter, Bromley and Caterino4,Reference Jorgensen and Brabrand5 Frailty is a multifactorial syndrome characterized by a heightened vulnerability to adverse health events and a diminished physiologic reserve, inhibiting homeostatic recovery from stressors.Reference Fried, Tangen and Walston6,Reference Rockwood, Song and MacKnight7 When assessed in the ED, frailty has proven to be a consistent predictor of hospitalization, hospital length of stay, functional decline, and death.Reference Brousseau, Dent and Hubbard8Reference Sirois, Griffith and Perry12

The 2016 Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) guidelines were updated based on expert consensus. Recommendations to enhance geriatric triage education and to incorporate a rapid frailty assessment within triage were endorsed to supplement decision making upon ED arrival. As standard practice in Canada, all patients presenting to the ED are assigned a CTAS score to prioritize and sort patients based on acuity of illness. The CTAS is a single-item Likert scale that ranges from one to five, with a score of one regarded as the most urgent and five the least urgent. The frailty modifier within CTAS is a level 3 first-order modifier designed to help identify frail patients with apparent non-urgent presentations who would otherwise have been assigned a CTAS level of 4 or 5. This is based on concerns that these patients may suffer more or deteriorate if subjected to prolonged waits for care.Reference Bullard, Musgrave and Warren13 Prior work has demonstrated the predictive and clinical utility of screening for frailty in the ED.Reference Jorgensen and Brabrand5 However, little is known about how frailty and triage acuity relate to one another. Identifying the relationship between frailty and triage acuity will help clarify the information value of frailty in triage, and whether frailty screening can further support clinical decision-making outside of triage.

We investigated the relationship between triage acuity and frailty scores in patients 75 years of age and older who presented to the ED before the implementation of the 2016 CTAS updates. We also compared their associations with patient outcomes, such as: hospitalization, hospital length of stay, and hospital recidivism. Bearing in mind that the CTAS is purposed to assess and prioritize medical acuity, whereas frailty screening is intended to highlight geriatric complexity and vulnerability, we hypothesized that there would be no relationship between these two measures. We also hypothesized and that these measures would be independently associated with different patient outcomes.

METHODS

Study design

We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian data from a multi-site, multinational prospective cohort study, the interRAI Multinational ED study.Reference Costa, Hirdes and Heckman14,Reference Gray, Peel and Costa15

Study setting and population

Data were collected from eight ED sites across five provinces in Canada (e.g., Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) between November 2009 and April 2012.Reference Costa16 Patients 75 years of age and older were recruited during ED registration. Patients were excluded if: they were in severe medical distress, they were expected to die within 24 hours of arrival as determined by the nurse assessor, or they did not speak English and/or did not have a valid interpreter. Data were collected by research nurses or allied health professionals during day time hours (8 am to 7 pm) based on staff availability and extant literature reporting high day time usage by older adults.Reference Downing and Wilson17 Ethics approval was obtained from the respective academic institutions and research ethics boards of all participating hospitals.Reference Costa16

Measurement and variables

Upon study enrolment, all patients received a formal geriatric assessment by a nurse or allied health professional using the interRAI ED Contact Assessment. All assessors were trained on the ED Contact Assessment and its supplementary software.Reference Costa16 The ED Contact Assessment is a brief assessment and a standardized clinical decision support tool to inform diagnostic, treatment, and discharge decision-making in the ED, and to improve communication and continuity postdischarge.Reference Costa AP and Arino-Blasco S18 The items of the ED Contact Assessment have established test content validity in acute care,Reference Wellens, Deschodt and Boonen19 inter-rater reliability,Reference Hirdes, Ljunggren and Morris20,Reference Wellens, Van Lancker and Flamaing21 and predictive validity across a series of outcomes in the ED setting.Reference Brousseau, Dent and Hubbard8,Reference Costa, Hirdes and Heckman14 After the initial assessment, a standardized follow-up was conducted at 90 days post ED or hospital discharge to determine hospital length of stay and post-discharge outcomes. Those admitted for in-patient services received follow-up by means of manual chart reviews or a secondary analysis of electronic medical records. Those discharged from the ED were contacted by means of telephone. Hospital medical and/or mortality records were reviewed if the telephone follow-up was unsuccessful.

The ED frailty index was created by Brousseau et al.Reference Brousseau, Dent and Hubbard8 using the items of the ED Contact Assessment to gauge the number of health deficits present at the time of ED assessment. A cumulative health deficit model was used to create the frailty index with guidance from methods proposed by Searle et al.Reference Searle, Mitnitski, Gahbauer, Gill and Rockwood22 In the general population, older adults deemed to be frail using a cumulative health deficit model have a median index score of 0.4.Reference Rockwood, Andrew and Mitnitski23 The ED frailty index is presented as a fraction, with the numerator being the number of health deficits present and the denominator being the total number of deficits possible in the ED Contact assessment. The ED frailty index has demonstrated predictive validity in both Canadian and international cohorts.Reference Brousseau, Dent and Hubbard8 In our study, frailty was operationalized using the ED frailty index scores assigned to patients during their ED visit, and triage acuity was based on the CTAS score assigned to patients upon presentation to the ED. Data were collected before the introduction of the frailty modifier and enhanced triage nurse geriatric education. As a result, the CTAS scores examined in this study reflect practice before the 2016 CTAS revisions, preventing contamination between the CTAS and frailty scores assigned.

The primary outcome measure for this study was hospital admission resulting from the index ED visit. Hospital length of stay, future hospitalization, and repeat ED visitation were also of interest. Hospital length of stay was dichotomized to parallel the figures reported by provincial governing bodies. An extended in-patient length of stay was defined as patients who experienced a hospital length of stay greater than the 90th percentile. Future hospitalization was defined as any hospital stay that occurred within 90 days of discharge from the index hospital presentation. Repeat ED visitation was defined as any ED visit that occurred within 30 days of discharge from the index hospital presentation. Patients who died in hospital were excluded from outcomes concerning hospital recidivism.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were reported using general measures of frequency and central tendency. Spearman rank was conducted to examine the relationship between CTAS and ED frailty index scores. Frailty and triage acuity were dichotomized with the top 33% of frailty scores deemed to be the most frail, and those with a CTAS of three or less deemed to be higher acuity. A series of chi-square tests were conducted to compare the proportion of post-disposition outcomes across patients with varying frailty and CTAS scores. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the adjusted observed relationships between the ED frailty index, CTAS, age, and gender, in relation to the outcome measures. For multivariable models, frailty was analyzed as a continuous variable to retain information, and also as quintiles to match the split of the CTAS and to provide a paralleled comparison. Cases with missing data were deleted within each analysis. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS institute Inc, Car, NC, USA), and sample size calculations were performed using G*Power 3.1.9.4. The required sample size was 1,046 patients based on a conservative correlation coefficient of 0.1, assuming 90% power and a two tailed-alpha of .05.Reference Faul, Erdfelder, Lang and Buchner24

RESULTS

The cohort contained 2,153 older adults who presented to the ED for care. Overall, 1,119 (51.9%) of ED visits resulted in hospitalization, with 139 patients (6.4%) dying in hospital. The mean age of all patients was 82.2 (SD ± 7.3), 60.7% were female, 37.3% lived alone, 41.3% had used the ED in the previous 90 days, and 80.1% of the sample received an urgent triage score (CTAS 1–3). ED frailty index scores were calculated for 89% (n = 1,916) of all observations, with a mean index score of 0.3 (range = 0–0.8).Reference Rockwood, Andrew and Mitnitski23 Missing data were minimal with a range of 0–3.8% (mean of 0.71%) across all variables examined. Additional patient demographics can be found in Table 1. We found no evidence of an association between the CTAS and ED frailty index scores assigned to patients within the ED (r = .001; p = 0.99).

Table 1. Patient characteristics

ED = emergency department.

*Data are reported as a mean and standard deviation.

† Primary informal helper(s) expresses feelings of distress, anger, or depression.

‡ Modified independent or any impairment in making decisions regarding tasks of daily living.

§Premorbid: the 3-day period before the onset of the current acute illness or episode.

|| Admission: the past 24 hours or time since acute illness or episode that prompted the ED visit.

¶ Acute change in mental status from person's usual functioning (e.g., restlessness, lethargy, difficult to arouse, altered environmental perception).

** Acute decline from premorbid: at admission, new impairment relative to premorbid.

†† Any supervision or any physical assistance in bathing, personal hygiene, dressing lower body, and locomotion.

‡‡ Difficulty remembering to take medicines, opening bottles, taking correct drug dosages, giving injections, or applying ointments.

§§Supervision or any assistance during full flight of stairs (12 to 14 stairs).

||| Sometimes, rarely, or never understands direct communication.

¶¶ When asked, “In general, how would you rate your health?” person responds “Poor.”

*** When asked, patient reports feeling sad, depressed, or hopeless in past 3 days.

††† When asked, patient reports little interest or pleasure in things they normally enjoy.

§§§ Pain that is severe or excruciating in past 3 days.

¶¶¶ Dyspnea at rest or present when performing normal day-to-day activities.

**** Noticeable decrease in the amount of food usually eaten or fluids usually consumed.

†††† Weight loss of 5% or more in last 30 days, or 10% or more in past 180 days.

Table 2 displays a combined assessment of triage acuity and frailty across post-disposition outcomes. Older adults considered to be both frail and of high acuity were most likely to be admitted for in-patient care (67.3%; p = < 0.001). Those deemed to be frail but who lacked medical acuity were most likely to experience an extended hospital length of stay (20.8%; p = < 0.001), or a hospitalization within 90 days of discharge from the index hospital presentation (28.5%; p = 0.04). For a comprehensive display of frailty and triage acuity across all prognostic factors, refer to appendix A.

Table 2. Comparison of Frailty and Triage Acuity (CTAS) across patient putcomes

ED = emergency department.

* Most Frail = Top 33% of ED Frailty Index scores, Least Frail = Bottom 66% of ED Frailty Index scores.

^ Higher Acuity = Canadian Triage Acuity Scale 1–3, Lower Acuity = Canadian Triage Acuity Scale 4–5

† Returned to an ED within 30 days of the index ED presentation.

§ Admitted to a hospital within 90 days of the index ED presentation.

After adjusting for triage acuity, age, and gender, multivariable logistic regression determined that a 0.1 unit increase in the ED frailty index score is associated with hospital admission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4–1.6), an extended hospital length of stay (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2–1.6), future hospitalization (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.1–1.3), and repeat ED use (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.04–1.2). The CTAS was only associated with hospital admission, with patients assigned a score of one (OR = 4.9; 95% CI = 1.02–27.9), two (OR = 6; 95% CI = 3.3–11.4), or three (OR = 3.6; 95% CI = 2.1–6.7) at greater risk for admission when compared with a non-urgent CTAS score of five. Table 3 displays a multivariable model with frailty divided into quintiles to match the split of the CTAS.

Table 3. Adjusted odds ratio for frailty and triage acuity across ED disposition outcomes

ED = emergency department; CTAS = Canadian Triage Acuity Scale.

Sample sizes vary due to missing data.

DISCUSSION

Interpretation of findings

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between triage acuity and frailty, and to compare their associations across several outcomes. We found that frailty and triage acuity are independent measures; however, both have clinical utility and are important for driving separate outcomes. Our findings demonstrated that frailty is associated with hospital admission, an extended hospital length of stay, repeat ED visitation, and future hospitalization, for older adults seeking emergency care. The CTAS was only associated with hospital admission. Finally, we identified a distinct cohort of frail older adults who presented for non-urgent medical attention. This group experienced the greatest number of hospitalized days per patient, and the highest rates of hospitalization post-discharge.

Comparison to previous studies

Our findings are consistent with existing literature examining the predictive utility of frailty screening in the ED.Reference Brousseau, Dent and Hubbard8Reference Salvi, Morichi and Grilli10 Despite the heterogeneity of instrumentation used to measure frailty across different emergency settings, studies examining similar outcomes consistently produced paralleled results. Little is known about the predictive utility of the CTAS for older adults in Canada. Bearing in mind that the CTAS was not purposed to predict patient outcomes, prior studies have demonstrated that the CTAS score assigned is associated with hospital admission, length of stay, and resource usage among the general Canadian population.Reference Dong, Bullard and Meurer25Reference Murray and Levis28 Studies outside of Canada have demonstrated that triage acuity is predictive of the same outcomes for older ED patients.Reference Baumann and Strout29,Reference Lee, Oh and Peck30

Clinical implications

Acuity is the primary function of the ED, and assigning a triage score to patients upon ED presentation is the standard of care. However, frailty and other geriatric syndromes are commonly overlooked by ED clinicians and processes.Reference Rutschmann, Chevalley, Zumwald, Luthy, Vermeulen and Sarasin31,Reference Carpenter, Griffey, Stark, Coopersmith and Gage32 We support the decision of CTAS to up-code frail patients presenting for non-urgent complaints, given their increased risk for under-triage and decompensation while waiting for treatment.Reference Platts-Mills, Travers and Biese33,Reference Grossmann, Zumbrunn, Frauchiger, Delport, Bingisser and Nickel34 However, the lack of collinearity between triage acuity and frailty suggests that there is further information to be gained from measuring frailty, above and beyond the CTAS score assigned. The high rates of hospital admissions, recidivism, and health service use by frail older ED patients presenting with low medical acuity underscores the value of frailty screening. Evaluating frailty as a measure encapsulated within triage acuity is likely to omit the geriatric complexity that drives health service use. Assessing frailty through a distinct lens may further highlight the unique needs and geriatric syndromes of frail older adults, information that is not apparent upon the review of a triage score.

Time constraints in triage along with the complex and multifaceted nature of frailty screening suggest that triage is a suboptimal environment to support an inclusive frailty assessment. A second and more comprehensive frailty screening during clinical treatment may be useful for case-finding to further identify seniors who could benefit from additional geriatric assessment, and targeted senior friendly pathways. The interRAI ED screener and the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) tool recommended by the geriatric ED guidelines are key examples of case-finding instruments currently embedded as the standard of care in many EDs.Reference Costa AP and Arino-Blasco S18,35 A common trait of these screening systems is that they produce an exclusive frailty score to supplement decision-making during clinical treatment. To obtain a similar effect with the CTAS modifier, and to prevent a loss of information during the transition of care from triage to treatment, ED clinicians should be made aware of patients who screen positive for frailty in triage. This information can be used to help guide emergency treatment and post-discharge follow-up. Cognizant of the limited resources and staffing available within the ED, comprehensive screening post-triage may be best suited to older ED patients who present with high geriatric complexity but low medical acuity.

Strengths and limitations

Our study is one of the few that used data with a comprehensive set of functional and geriatric syndromes not typically available in ED medical records. The secondary nature of the study limited our analyses to only those available in the archived data. Diagnostic information would have provided supplementary information to assist in understanding the clinical reasoning behind the ED disposition outcomes. Similarly, data were only collected during daytime hours; patient and visit characteristics may differ during night-time visitation. Finally, due to a low mortality event rate during the study period, we were unable to analyze mortality as an outcome.

Our findings are hypothesis generating, and future research is needed to determine the optimal timing of comprehensive frailty screening in the ED, and how to adapt traditional emergency management pathways to incorporate this practice post-triage. Given the recommendation for the CTAS frailty modifier, future studies should aim to examine the impact of the frailty modifier on time-to-treatment and other important patient outcomes. Finally, our study identified a unique subgroup of older adults with high frailty and low medical acuity driving health service use. Future research is needed to further characterize this distinct cohort.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that triage acuity and frailty are two distinct but clinically important constructs found to be associated with different outcomes for older ED patients. Frailty was associated with hospitalization, extended hospital length of stay, and hospital recidivism, demonstrating that this measure can be used to guide clinical decision-making post-triage. Frail older adults presenting to the ED with low medical acuity were identified as a subgroup of patients driving health service use.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.432.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and thank Dr. Michael Bullard for his review of this paper and guidance regarding the CTAS content.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

None declared.

References

1.Roberts, DC, McKay, MP, Shaffer, A.Increasing rates of emergency department visits for elderly patients in the United States, 1993 to 2003. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51(6):769–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Hwang, U, Morrison, RS.The geriatric emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55(11):1873–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Perry, A, Macias Tejada, J, Melady, D.An approach to the older patient in the emergency department. Clin Geriatr Med 2018;34(3):299311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Carpenter, CR, Bromley, M, Caterino, JM, et al. Optimal older adult emergency care: introducing multidisciplinary geriatric emergency department guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21(7):806–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Jorgensen, R, Brabrand, M.Screening of the frail patient in the emergency department: a systematic review. Eur J Emerg Med 2017;45:71–3.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Fried, LP, Tangen, CM, Walston, J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56(3):146–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Rockwood, K, Song, X, MacKnight, C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005;173(5):489–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Brousseau, AA, Dent, E, Hubbard, R, et al. Identification of older adults with frailty in the emergency department using a frailty index: results from a multinational study. Age Aging 2018;47(2):242–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Hastings, SN, Purser, JL, Johnson, KS, Sloane, RJ, Whitson, HE.Frailty predicts some but not all adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56(9):1651–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Salvi, F, Morichi, V, Grilli, A, et al. Screening for frailty in elderly emergency department patients by using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR). J Nutr Health Aging 2012;16(4):313–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Wallis, SJ, Wall, J, Biram, RW, Romero-Ortuno, R.Association of the clinical frailty scale with hospital outcomes. QJM 2015;108(12):943–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Sirois, MJ, Griffith, L, Perry, J, et al. Measuring frailty can help emergency departments identify independent seniors at risk of functional decline after minor injuries. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2017;72(1):6874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Bullard, MJ, Musgrave, E, Warren, D, et al. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) guidelines 2016. CJEM 2017;19(2):1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Costa, AP, Hirdes, JP, Heckman, GA, et al. Geriatric syndromes predict postdischarge outcomes among older emergency department patients: findings from the inteRAI Multinational Emergency Department Study. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21(4):422–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Gray, LC, Peel, NM, Costa, AP, et al. Profiles of older patients in the emergency department: findings from the interRAI Multinational Emergency Department Study. Ann Emerg Med 2013;62(5):467–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Costa, AP.Older adults seeking emergency care: an examination of unplanned emergency department use, patient profiles, and adverse patient outcomes post discharge [disseration]. Waterloo: University of Waterloo; 2013.Google Scholar
17.Downing, A, Wilson, R.Older people's use of accident and emergency services. Age Aging 2005;34(1):2430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Costa AP, Hirdes, Arino-Blasco S, J, et al. InterRAI Emergency Department (ED) Assessment System Manual: For Use with the interRAI ED Screener (EDS) and ED Contact Assessment (ED-CA). 9.3 ed. Washington, DC: InterRAI; 2017.Google Scholar
19.Wellens, NI, Deschodt, M, Boonen, S, et al. Validity of the interRAI Acute Care based on test content: a multi-center study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2011;23(5–6):476–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Hirdes, JP, Ljunggren, G, Morris, JN, et al. Reliability of the interRAI suite of assessment instruments: a 12-country study of an integrated health information system. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Wellens, NI, Van Lancker, A, Flamaing, J, et al. Interrater reliability of the interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012;55(1):165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Searle, SD, Mitnitski, A, Gahbauer, EA, Gill, TM, Rockwood, K.A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 2008;8:24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Rockwood, K, Andrew, M, Mitnitski, A.A comparison of two approaches to measuring frailty in elderly people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007;62(7):738743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, Buchner, A.G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39(2):175–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Predictive validity of a computerized emergency triage tool. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14(1):1621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Spence JM, BD, Murray, MJ.Does the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale correlate with admission to the hospital from the emergency department? CJEM 2003;6(180):11.Google Scholar
27.Stenstrom, R, Graftstein, GE, Innes, G, Christenson, J.The predictive validity of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). CJEM 2003;5(184):12.Google Scholar
28.Murray, MJ, Levis, G.Does triage level (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale) correlate with resource utilization for emergency department visits? CJEM 2003;6(180):13.Google Scholar
29.Baumann, MR, Strout, TD.Triage of geriatric patients in the emergency department: validity and survival with the Emergency Severity Index. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49(2):234–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Lee, JY, Oh, SH, Peck, EH, et al. The validity of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in predicting resource utilization and the need for immediate life-saving interventions in elderly emergency department patients. Scan J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2011;19:68.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Rutschmann, OT, Chevalley, T, Zumwald, C, Luthy, C, Vermeulen, B, Sarasin, FP.Pitfalls in the emergency department triage of frail elderly patients without specific complaints. Swiss Med Wkly 2005;135(9–10):145–50.Google ScholarPubMed
32.Carpenter, CR, Griffey, RT, Stark, S, Coopersmith, CM, Gage, BF.Physician and nurse acceptance of technicians to screen for geriatric syndromes in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med 2011;12(4):489–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Platts-Mills, TF, Travers, D, Biese, K, et al. Accuracy of the Emergency Severity Index triage instrument for identifying elder emergency department patients receiving an immediate life-saving intervention. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17(3):238–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Grossmann, FF, Zumbrunn, T, Frauchiger, A, Delport, K, Bingisser, R, Nickel, CH.At risk of undertriage? Testing the performance and accuracy of the Emergency Severity Index in older emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 2012;60(3):317–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatric Society, Emergency Nurses Association, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Geriatric Emergeny Department Guidelines Task Force. Geriatric emergency department guidelines. Ann Emerg Med 2014;63(5):e725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Patient characteristics

Figure 1

Table 2. Comparison of Frailty and Triage Acuity (CTAS) across patient putcomes

Figure 2

Table 3. Adjusted odds ratio for frailty and triage acuity across ED disposition outcomes

Supplementary material: File

Mowbray et al. supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Mowbray et al. supplementary material(File)
File 41 KB
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Examining the relationship between triage acuity and frailty to inform the care of older emergency department patients: Findings from a large Canadian multisite cohort study
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Examining the relationship between triage acuity and frailty to inform the care of older emergency department patients: Findings from a large Canadian multisite cohort study
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Examining the relationship between triage acuity and frailty to inform the care of older emergency department patients: Findings from a large Canadian multisite cohort study
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *