SIR—Age is broadly recognised to confer a risk for adverse health outcomes, but it is an insensitive and non-specific measure for use in individual decision-making. Frailty has been emerging to take its rightful place as a better measure for over a decade [1]. Despite general consensus that the concept of frailty is clinically useful, the lack of agreement on its definition and the challenge of its measurement by front-line health providers mean that frailty remains only ‘heir apparent’ to chronological age as a criterion to select older persons at risk [2].

Informed surgical consent requires accurate estimation of risks and benefits. Multiple risk assessment tools are available; however, most are not widely used or are specific to certain interventions. Assessing surgical risk is especially challenging in elderly patients because of their range of comorbidities, level of frailty, or severity of illness and a number of available surgical interventions. We searched MEDLINE from January 2014 to July 2017 for studies that used risk assessment tools in studies on elderly surgical patients. We then sought the original articles describing each assessment tool and subsequent validation studies. We identified risk assessment tools that can improve surgical risk assessment in elderly surgical patients. The majority of the identified tools are not commonly used for pre-operative risk assessment. NSQIP-PMP, mFI and SURPAS are promising tools. Age is commonly used to predict risk, but frailty may be a more appropriate measure.

Background: Few studies have directly compared the competing approaches to identifying frailty in more vulnerable older populations. We examined the ability of two versions of a frailty index (43 vs. 83 items), the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) frailty criteria, and the CHESS scale to accurately predict the occurrence of three outcomes among Assisted Living (AL) residents followed over one year. Methods: The three frailty measures and the CHESS scale were derived from assessment items completed among 1,066 AL residents (aged 65+) participating in the Alberta Continuing Care Epidemiological Studies (ACCES). Adjusted risks of one-year mortality, hospitalization and long-term care placement were estimated for those categorized as frail or pre-frail compared with non-frail (or at high/intermediate vs. low risk on CHESS). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for select models to assess the predictive accuracy of the different frailty measures and CHESS scale in relation to the three outcomes examined. Results: Frail subjects defined by the three approaches and those at high risk for decline on CHESS showed a statistically significant increased risk for death and long-term care placement compared with those categorized as either not frail or at low risk for decline. The risk estimates for hospitalization associated with the frailty measures and CHESS were generally weaker with one of the frailty indices (43 items) showing no significant association. For death and long-term care placement, the addition of frailty (however derived) or CHESS significantly improved on the AUC obtained with a model including only age, sex and co-morbidity, though the magnitude of improvement was sometimes small. The different frailty/risk models did not differ significantly from each other in predicting mortality or hospitalization; however, one of the frailty indices (83 items) showed significantly better performance over the other measures in predicting long-term care placement. Conclusions: Using different approaches, varying degrees of frailty were detected within the AL population. The various approaches to defining frailty were generally more similar than dissimilar with regard to predictive accuracy with some exceptions. The clinical implications and opportunities of detecting frailty in more vulnerable older adults require further investigation.

Background The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a commonly used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. We are inter­ested in the test characteristics, especially interrater reliability, of the CFS in ICU by comparing the scores of intensivists to geriatricians. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study on a convenience sample of newly admitted patients to an ICU in Edmonton, Canada. An intensivist and a resident in Geriatric Medicine (GM) independently assigned a CFS score on 158 adults within 72 hours of admission. A specialist in Geriatric Medi­cine assigned a CFS score independently of 20 of the 158 patients to assess agreement between the two raters trained in geriatrics. Predictive validity was captured using mortality and length of stay. Results Agreement on CFS score was fair for intensivists vs. GM resident (kappa 0.32) and for intensivists vs. GM specialist (0.29), but substantial for GM resident vs. staff (0.79). Despite this, the CFS remained prognostically relevant, regardless of rater background. Frailty (CFS ≥ 5) as assessed by either intensivist or GM resident was a strong predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-8.4, p = .003 and OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.3-6.9; p = .01, respectively). Frailty was also positively correlated with age, illness severity measured by APACHE II score, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions The interrater reliability of the CFS in ICU settings is fair for intensivists vs. geriatricians.

Canadian healthcare is changing to include individuals living with frailty, but frailty must be better operationalized and better framed by sound data stan

The terms successful aging (SA) and frailty appear to have much in common, both in terms of overlapping constructs and common challenges with consensus and operationalization. The aim of this review is to summarize existing literature that defines that relationship. Primary and secondary source articles that used either term in the title or abstract were systematically reviewed for relevance to the study objective. Of 61 articles that met these criteria, 30 were secondary source, and of these four were highly relevant. Four of the remaining 31 original research articles were selected, and the prevalence of frailty and SA in populations with different characteristics were described and compared. The same model of frailty was used in all primary studies, but definitions for successful aging were heterogeneous. The prevalence of frailty ranged from 11.8% to 44.0% and that of SA ranged from 10.4% to 47.2%. The definitions used for each, especially the extent of multidimensionality, appeared to reflect the degree of overlap between SA and frailty. Whether frailty and SA are part of the same or different constructs, there is a pressing need for an ordered taxonomy to advance research that translates into clinical practice.