Practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of common frailty screening instruments within general practice settings: a mixed methods study.
80 and over
Aged
Community health nursing
Frailty
General practice
Mass screening
Primary care
Journal
BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 06 2022
27 06 2022
Historique:
received:
16
07
2021
accepted:
20
06
2022
entrez:
26
6
2022
pubmed:
27
6
2022
medline:
29
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35754037
doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01778-9
pii: 10.1186/s12875-022-01778-9
pmc: PMC9235102
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
160Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
BMJ. 2018 Aug 28;362:k3349
pubmed: 30154082
Eur J Gen Pract. 2014 Jun;20(2):107-13
pubmed: 24224607
J Nutr Health Aging. 2009 Dec;13(10):881-9
pubmed: 19924348
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Apr 22;20(1):152
pubmed: 32321431
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Nov;67(664):e751-e756
pubmed: 28947622
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Mar 07;6(7):377-382
pubmed: 28812833
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Jun;14(6):392-7
pubmed: 23764209
Lancet. 2019 Oct 12;394(10206):1365-1375
pubmed: 31609228
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007 Jul;62(7):731-7
pubmed: 17634320
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Aug 03;17:102
pubmed: 27488562
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56
pubmed: 11253156
J Nutr Health Aging. 2019;23(9):771-787
pubmed: 31641726
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019 May;31(5):653-660
pubmed: 30132204
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 31;18(1):395
pubmed: 29855306
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8
pubmed: 1991946
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 May;59(562):e177-82
pubmed: 19401013
Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jun;31:3-10
pubmed: 27039014
Aust J Gen Pract. 2019 Jul;48(7):426-433
pubmed: 31256509
Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(4):423-8
pubmed: 25200596
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Jun 19;14:86
pubmed: 23782891
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8
pubmed: 18416914
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 03;7(8):e016663
pubmed: 28775191
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 May 21;14:64
pubmed: 23692735
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2015 Apr;15(4):518-9
pubmed: 25828791
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2010 Jun;11(5):356-64
pubmed: 20511103
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008 Jul-Aug;47(1):9-18
pubmed: 17723247
Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2019 May 15;5:2333721419848153
pubmed: 31192278
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020 May 22;75(6):1134-1142
pubmed: 31689342
ScientificWorldJournal. 2001 Aug 08;1:323-36
pubmed: 12806071
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2009;32(2):46-9
pubmed: 20039582
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012 Apr;12(2):189-97
pubmed: 22233158
Age Ageing. 2014 Nov;43(6):744-7
pubmed: 25336440
J Nutr Health Aging. 2012 Jul;16(7):601-8
pubmed: 22836700
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Apr 17;17(1):87
pubmed: 28415977
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Feb;15(2):143-4
pubmed: 24461243
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2003 Jun;15(3 Suppl):1-29
pubmed: 14580013
Age Ageing. 2006 Sep;35(5):526-9
pubmed: 16757522
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Jul 1;18(7):564-575
pubmed: 28648901
Aust J Rural Health. 2018 Dec;26(6):449-450
pubmed: 30444285
Prev Med. 2019 Feb;119:63-69
pubmed: 30594533