Volume 9, Issue 4, December 2024

Objectives

This study aims to determine whether modified Hospital Frailty Risk Score (mHFRS) can identify frail hospitalised older adults by comparing mHFRS to HFRS and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS).

Methods

A retrospective review was undertaken in patients =>65 years hospitalised following an Emergency Department attendance between 1st July 2022 and 31st March 2023. Predictive models were evaluated with correlation and measure of agreement between frailty risk scores, CFS and HFRS, CFS and modified HFRS (mHFRS) using the Spearman’s rank correlation and Cohen’s kappa (κ).

Results

Of 3042 patients, CFS categorised 1635 (53.7%) patients as non-frail (CFS 1-4) and 1407 (46.3%) as frail (CFS 5-9,p<0.001). Frail patients were more likely to be female (55.9%), older (81.8 years, SD 8.41 vs 75.3 years, SD 7.20, p<0.001), with longer LOS (52.5% % vs 31.5%, p<0.001), higher 30-day emergency re-admission (18.5% vs 9.9%, p<0.001) and higher mortality at all time points. We could compute mHFRS for 1623 (53.4%) patients, of whom, 37.5% were low risk, 40.5% intermediate risk and 22.1% high frailty risk. mHFRS showed significant correlation with CFS (p<0.001) and HFRS (p<0.001), respectively and achieved comparable association with clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

mHFRS was better at identifying non-frail patients and provides a novel, standardised and comparable frailty risk stratification tool for screening older hospitalised patients.

Objectives

Fall-related injuries occur at a similar prevalence rate in middle-aged and older adults and may increase concerns about falling and future falls. No research to date has examined how experiences of falls and related concerns, differ between middle-aged and older fallers. This study aimed to address this using qualitative interviews.

Methods

Ten middle-aged (55-64 years) and ten older adults (68-83 years) were interviewed about their experiences of falls and concerns about falling. Guided by a social constructivist epistemology, reflexive thematic analysis was used to categorise themes within the data.

Results

Five overarching themes were identified. Four themes showed distinctions between groups (i) perceptions of age-related decline; (ii) ageism: stigma associated with ‘fallers’; (iii) concerns about loss of independence; and (iv) unravelling perceived control. The fifth theme (v) perceptions of falls risk: concerns and awareness, demonstrated the most similarities.

Conclusions

Whilst middle-aged and older fallers showed similar ratings of concern about falling, the behaviours underlying these were qualitatively different. For older adults, concerns led to protective adaptations to reduce their fall risk. Contrastingly, middle-aged adults showed a lack of personal responsibility over their fall risk. The findings highlight the importance of early educational intervention to reduce future falls and frailty.

Objective

Parkinson’s patients will experience mobility disturbances with disease progression. Beneficial effects of physical therapy are short-lasting. Novel interventions are needed to maintain these benefits.

Methods

Fourteen Parkinson’s patients (71±4.08 years) participated in a randomized controlled examiner-blinded feasibility clinical trial. After 12 physical therapy sessions, the intervention group received a height-adjustable desk that facilitates stepping while standing, for 4 months. Explorative outcome measures included MDS-UPDRS II, III, TUG, 8.5m walking test, PDQ-39, sABC, sFES, DEXA scans, and lower extremity strength.

Results

Post-physical-therapy, everyone significantly improved on the MDS-UPDRS II, III, TUG, and 8.5m walking test, and PDQ-39. (p<0.05) After 4 months, the control group regressed towards pre-physical-therapy values. In the intervention group, sedentary behavior decreased beyond desk use, indicating a carry-over effect. MDS-UPDRS II, PDQ-39, sFES, sABC, TUG, 8.5m walking test, activity time, sitting time, hip strength all improved with clinically relevant effect sizes.

Conclusion

Post-physical therapy in-home reduction of sedentary behavior was associated with maintenance of physical benefits and additional improvements in mobility, activity time, balance and quality of life.