Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | BMC Primary Care |
Volume | 23 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Keywords
- 80 and over
- Aged
- Community health nursing
- Frailty
- General practice
- Mass screening
- Primary care
- aged
- Australia
- epidemiology
- feasibility study
- frail elderly
- frailty
- general practice
- geriatric assessment
- human
- procedures
- Feasibility Studies
- Frail Elderly
- General Practice
- Geriatric Assessment
- Humans
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of common frailty screening instruments within general practice settings: a mixed methods study: BMC Primary Care'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: BMC Primary Care, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2022.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of common frailty screening instruments within general practice settings: a mixed methods study
T2 - BMC Primary Care
AU - Ambagtsheer, R.C.
AU - Casey, M.G.
AU - Lawless, M.
AU - Archibald, M.M.
AU - Yu, S.
AU - Kitson, A.
AU - Beilby, J.J.
N1 - Export Date: 11 July 2022 Correspondence Address: Ambagtsheer, R.C.; Torrens University AustraliaAustralia; email: rambagtsheer@torrens.edu.au Funding details: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, IRSC Funding details: National Health and Medical Research Council, NHMRC, 1102208 Funding text 1: This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) via funding provided for the Centre of Research Excellence in Frailty and Healthy Ageing (#1102208), a Torrens University Australia Seed Grant, and a GTRAC-Resthaven Research grant. MA acknowledges the fellowship support received from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The sponsors had no role in the design or preparation of the paper. References: Dent, E., Kowal, P., Hoogendijk, E.O., Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: a review (2016) Eur J Intern Med, 31, pp. 3-10; Morley, J.E., Vellas, B., Abellan van Kan, G., Frailty consensus: a call to action (2013) J Am Med Dir Assoc, 14, pp. 392-397; Dent, E., Lien, C., Lim, W.S., The Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines for the Management of Frailty (2017) J Am Med Dir Assoc, 18, pp. 564-575; Bergman, H., Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J., Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm--issues and controversies (2007) J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 62, pp. 731-737; Hogan, D.B., Macknight, C., Bergman, H., Models, definitions, and criteria of frailty (2003) Aging Clin Exp Res, pp. 3-29. , https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811353-0.00003-8; Gobbens, R.J.J., van Assen, M.A.L.M., Luijkx, K.G., Determinants of frailty (2010) J Am Med Dir Assoc, 11, pp. 356-364; Cesari, M., Vellas, B., Response to the letter to the editor: “what is missing in the validation of frailty instruments? (2014) J Am Med Dir Assoc, 15, pp. 143-144; Dent, E., Morley, J.E., Cruz-Jentoft, A.J., Physical frailty: ICFSR international clinical practice guidelines for identification and management (2019) J Nutr Heal Aging, 23, pp. 771-787; Turner, G., Clegg, A., Best practice guidelines for the management of frailty: a British geriatrics society, age UK and Royal College of general practitioners report (2014) Age Ageing, 43, pp. 744-747; Reeves, D., Pye, S., Ashcroft, D.M., The challenge of ageing populations and patient frailty: can primary care adapt? (2018) BMJ, 362, p. k3349; (2019) RACGP aged care clinical guide (Silver Book), , 5; Archibald, M.M., Ambagtsheer, R., Beilby, J., Perspectives of frailty and frailty Screening: protocol for a collaborative knowledge translation approach and qualitative study of stakeholder understandings and experiences (2017) BMC Geriatr, 17, p. 87; Lawson, B., Sampalli, T., Wood, S., Study protocol evaluating the implementation and feasibility of a web- based tool to support timely identification and Care for the Frail Population in primary healthcare settings (2017) Int J Heal Policy Manag, 6, pp. 377-382; Warner, G., Lawson, B., Sampalli, T., Applying the consolidated framework for implementation research to identify barriers affecting implementation of an online frailty tool into primary health care: a qualitative study (2018) BMC Health Serv Res, 18, p. 395; Abernethy, G., Smyth, W., Arnold-Nott, C., Investigation on the use and acceptability of the Edmonton frail scale in a rural primary care setting (2018) Aust J Rural Health, 26, pp. 449-450; Keiren, S.M.G., van Kempen, J.A.L., Schers, H.J., Feasibility evaluation of a stepped procedure to identify community-dwelling frail older people in general practice. A mixed methods study (2014) Eur J Gen Pract, 20, pp. 107-113; Abbasi, M., Khera, S., Dabravolskaj, J., Identification of frailty in primary Care: feasibility and acceptability of recommended case finding tools within a primary care integrated seniors ’ program (2019) Gerontol Geriatr Med, 5, pp. 1-7; Lansbury, L.N., Roberts, H.C., Clift, E., Use of the electronic frailty index to identify vulnerable patients: a pilot study in primary care (2017) Br J Gen Pract, 67, pp. e751-e756; Ambagtsheer, R.C., Archibald, M.M., Lawless, M., Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study (2020) BMC Geriatr, 20, pp. 1-11; Ambagtsheer, R.C., Beilby, J., Dabravolskaj, J., Application of an electronic frailty index in Australian primary care: data quality and feasibility assessment (2019) Aging Clin Exp Res, 31. , https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-1023-9; Drubbel, I., Bleijenberg, N., Kranenburg, G., Identifying frailty: do the frailty index and Groningen frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? A cross-sectional study (2013) BMC Fam Pract, 14. , https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-64; Ambagtsheer, R.C., Beilby, J.J., Visvanathan, R., Should we screen for frailty in primary care settings? A fresh perspective on the frailty evidence base: a narrative review (2019) Prev Med, 119, pp. 63-69; Creswell, J.W., (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, , 3, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks; O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., Nicholl, J., The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research (2008) J Heal Serv Res Policy, 13, pp. 92-98; (2018) Zoom [Software]; Ambagtsheer, R.C., Archibald, M.M., Lawless, M., General practitioners’ perceptions, attitudes and experiences of frailty and frailty screening (2019) Aust J Gen Pract, 48, pp. 426-433; Ambagtsheer, R.C., Visvanathan, R., Dent, E., Commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people in a general practice (primary care) setting: a study of diagnostic test accuracy (2020) J Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci, 75, pp. 1134-1142; Ambagtsheer, R., Visvanathan, R., Cesari, M., Feasibility, acceptability and diagnostic test accuracy of frailty screening instruments in community-dwelling older people within the Australian general practice setting: a study protocol for a cross-sectional study (2017) BMJ Open, 7; Steverink, N., Slaets, J.P., Schuurmans, H., Measuring frailty: developing and testing the GFI (Groningen frailty Indicator) (2001) Gerontologist, 41, p. 236; Arai, H., Satake, S., English translation of the Kihon checklist (2015) Geriatr Gerontol Int, 15, pp. 518-519; Sewo Sampaio, P.Y., Sampaio, R.A.C., Yamada, M., Comparison of frailty between users and nonusers of a day care center using the Kihon checklist in Brazil (2014) J Clin Gerontol Geriatr, 5, pp. 82-85; Rolfson, D.B., Majumdar, S.R., Tsuyuki, R.T., Validity and reliability of the Edmonton frail scale (2006) Age Ageing, 35, pp. 526-529; Raiche, M., Hebert, R., Dubois, M.-F., PRISMA-7: a case-finding tool to identify older adults with moderate to severe disabilities (2008) Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 47, pp. 9-18; Morley, J.E.E., Malmstrom, T.K.K., Miller, D.K.K., A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged african americans (2012) J Nutr Heal Aging, 16, pp. 601-608; Podsiadlo, D., Richardson, S., The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons (1991) J Am Geriatr Soc, 39, pp. 142-148. , COI: 1:STN:280:DyaK3M7itlKgsA%3D%3D; Fritz, S., Lusardi, M., Walking speed: the sixth vital sign (2009) J Geriatr Phys Ther, 32, pp. 1-5; Castell, M., Sánchez, M., Julián, R., Frailty prevalence and slow walking speed in persons age 65 and older: implications for primary care (2013) BMC Fam Pract, 14, p. 86; Abellan van Kan, G., Rolland, Y., Andrieu, S., Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an international academy on nutrition and aging (IANA) task force (2009) J Nutr Heal Aging, 13, pp. 881-889. , COI: 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MjmvFyqsw%3D%3D; (2016) Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5 - Remoteness Structure, July, , https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1270.0.55.005Main+Features1July2016?OpenDocument, Cat No, Accessed 15 Jan 2019; Archibald, M.M., Ambagtsheer, R.C., Casey, M.G., Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants (2019) Int J Qual Methods, 18. , https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596; Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., The qualitative content analysis process (2008) J Adv Nurs, 62, pp. 107-115; Sutorius, F.L., Hoogendijk, E.O., Prins, B.A.H., Comparison of 10 single and stepped methods to identify frail older persons in primary care: diagnostic and prognostic accuracy (2016) BMC Fam Pract, 17, p. 102; Pialoux, T., Goyard, J., Lesourd, B., Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: a systematic review (2012) Geriatr Gerontol Int, 12, pp. 189-197; De Lepeleire, J., Iliffe, S., Mann, E., Frailty: an emerging concept for general practice (2009) Br J Gen Pract, 59, pp. 364-369; Hoogendijk, E.O., Afilalo, J., Ensrud, K.E., Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health (2019) Lancet, 394, pp. 1365-1375; Fried, L.P., Tangen, C.M., Walston, J., Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype (2001) J Gerontol Ser a-Biological Sci Med Sci, 56, pp. M146-M156; Mitnitski, A., Mogilner, A., Rockwood, K., Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging (2001) Sci World J, 1, pp. 323-336. , COI: 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3nvV2quw%3D%3D; Hamirudin, A.H., Ghosh, A., Charlton, K., Trends in uptake of the 75+ health assessment in Australia: a decade of evaluation (2015) Aust J Prim Health, 21, pp. 423-428; Harris, W., Lucas, P.V., Eyles, H., Paramedic assessment of Frailty: an exploratory study of perceptions of frailty assessment tools (2018) Irish J Paramed, 3, pp. 1-10; Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M., Francis, J.J., Acceptability of healthcare interventions : An overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework BMC Health Serv Res, 2017, pp. 1-13. , https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: Frailty is a highly prevalent clinical syndrome increasing older people’s vulnerability to risk of adverse outcomes. Better frailty identification through expanded screening implementation has been advocated within general practice settings, both internationally and within Australia. However, little is known about practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of specific instruments, and the underlying motivations behind those perceptions. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of a convenience and volunteer sample of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) towards common frailty screening instruments. Methods: The feasibility of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7 [P7], Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) to 43 Australian GPs and PNs was assessed. The study adopted a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design incorporating quantitative (ranking exercise) and qualitative (content analysis) data collection integrated during the analysis phase. Results: Practitioners assessed multi-dimensional instruments (EFS, GFI, KC) as having relatively higher clinical utility, better integration into existing assessment processes and stronger links to intervention over uni-dimensional (GST, TUG) and simple (FQ, P7) instruments. Conclusions: While existing frailty screening instruments show promise as an initial step in supporting better care for older people, all the included instruments were associated with perceived advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, clinicians will need to weigh several factors in their selection of the optimal screening instrument. Further translational research, with a focus on contextual fit, is needed to support clinical decision-making on the selection of instruments for frailty screening. © 2022, The Author(s).
AB - Background: Frailty is a highly prevalent clinical syndrome increasing older people’s vulnerability to risk of adverse outcomes. Better frailty identification through expanded screening implementation has been advocated within general practice settings, both internationally and within Australia. However, little is known about practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of specific instruments, and the underlying motivations behind those perceptions. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of a convenience and volunteer sample of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) towards common frailty screening instruments. Methods: The feasibility of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7 [P7], Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) to 43 Australian GPs and PNs was assessed. The study adopted a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design incorporating quantitative (ranking exercise) and qualitative (content analysis) data collection integrated during the analysis phase. Results: Practitioners assessed multi-dimensional instruments (EFS, GFI, KC) as having relatively higher clinical utility, better integration into existing assessment processes and stronger links to intervention over uni-dimensional (GST, TUG) and simple (FQ, P7) instruments. Conclusions: While existing frailty screening instruments show promise as an initial step in supporting better care for older people, all the included instruments were associated with perceived advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, clinicians will need to weigh several factors in their selection of the optimal screening instrument. Further translational research, with a focus on contextual fit, is needed to support clinical decision-making on the selection of instruments for frailty screening. © 2022, The Author(s).
KW - 80 and over
KW - Aged
KW - Community health nursing
KW - Frailty
KW - General practice
KW - Mass screening
KW - Primary care
KW - aged
KW - Australia
KW - epidemiology
KW - feasibility study
KW - frail elderly
KW - frailty
KW - general practice
KW - geriatric assessment
KW - human
KW - procedures
KW - Feasibility Studies
KW - Frail Elderly
KW - General Practice
KW - Geriatric Assessment
KW - Humans
UR - https://doi.org/10.25905/21424995.v1
U2 - 10.1186/s12875-022-01778-9
DO - 10.1186/s12875-022-01778-9
M3 - Article
SN - 2731-4553
VL - 23
JO - BMC Primary Care
JF - BMC Primary Care
IS - 1
ER -