AIMS: Although up to 25% of older adults are frail, assessing frailty can be difficult, especially in registry data. This study evaluated the utility of a code-based frailty score in registry data by comparing it to a gold-standard frailty score to understand how frailty can be quantified in population data and perhaps better addressed in healthcare.
METHODS: We compared the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), a frailty measure based on 109 ICD codes, to a modified version of the Frailty Index (FI) Frailty Index (FI), a self-report frailty measure, and their associations with all-cause mortality both cross-sectionally and longitudinally (follow-up = 36 years) in a Swedish cohort study (n = 1368).
RESULTS: The FI and HFRS were weakly correlated (rho = 0.11, p < 0.001). Twenty-two percent (n = 297) of participants were considered frail based on published cut-offs of either measure. Only 3% (n = 35) of participants were classified as frail by both measures; 4% (n = 60) of participants were considered frail by only the HFRS; and 15% (n = 202) of participants were considered frail based only on the FI. Frailty as measured by the HFRS showed greater variance and no clear increase or decrease with age, while frailty as measured by the FI increased steadily with age. In adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, baseline HFRS frailty (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.92, 1.49) was not statistically significantly associated with mortality, while FI frailty was (HR = 2.89, 95% CI 1.61, 2.23). These associations were modified by age and sex.
CONCLUSIONS: The HFRS may not capture the full spectrum of frailty among community-dwelling individuals, particularly at younger ages, in Swedish registry data.
|Number of pages||8|
|Journal||SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH|
|Publication status||E-pub ahead of print - 14 Dec 2021|
|Publication type||A1 Journal article-refereed|