During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial. Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics? This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation). Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy. Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.

Aim: To translate and culturally adapt the FRAIL scale into Spanish and perform a preliminary test of diagnostic accuracy in patients admitted to intensive care units.Design: Cross‐sectional diagnostic study.Methods: Five intensive care units (ICU) in Spain were participated. Stage 1: Three native Spanish‐speaking bilingual translators familiar with the field of critical care translated the scale from English into Spanish. Stage 2: Three native English‐speaking bilingual translators familiar with critical care medicine. Stage 3: Authors of the original scale compared the English original and back‐translated versions of the scale. Stage 4: Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the comprehension and relevance of each of the items of the Spanish version in 30 patients of 3 different age ranges (65 years).Results: The FRAIL scale was translated and adapted cross‐culturally for patients admitted to intensive care units in Spain. The process consisted of four stages: translation, back translation, comparison and pilot test. There was good correspondence between the original scale and the Spanish version in 100% of the items. The participating patients assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of each of the items of the first Spanish version. The relevance of some of the items scored low when the scale was used in patients younger than 65 years.Conclusions: We have cross‐culturally adapted the FRAIL scale, originally in English, to Spanish for its use in the critical care medical setting in Spanish‐speaking countries.Implications for Professionals: Physicians and nurses can apply the new scale to all patients admitted to the intensive care units. Nursing care can be adapted according to frailty, trying to reduce the side effects of admission to these units for the most fragile patients.Reporting Method: The manuscript's authors have adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines, using the COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on the measurement properties of patient‐reported outcome measures.Patient or Public Contribution: In a pilot clinical study, we applied the first version of the FRAIL‐Spain scale to intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of the five items of the first Spanish version. Relevance was assessed using a 4‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no relevance) to 4 (high relevance), and comprehensibility was assessed as poor, acceptable or good. Each health professional applied the scale to three patients (total number of patients = 30) of three different age ranges (65 years) and recorded the time of application of the scale to each patient. Although the frailty scales were initially created by geriatricians to be applied to the elders, there is little experience with their application in critically ill patients of any age. Therefore, more information is needed to determine the relevance of using this scale in critical care patients. In this pilot study, we considered that nurses and critical care physicians should evaluate frailty using this adapted scale in adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units.

Aims: To adapt the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) into Spanish and assess its concordance with the Spanish version of the FRAIL scale (FRAIL‐Es) in the context of intensive care.Design: Validation study of frailty assessment scales in critically ill patients.Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of translating, culturally adapting, and validating the CFS into Spanish. The second phase consisted of a metric descriptive study to assess the concurrent criterion validity of the adapted CFS with FRAIL‐Es in a cohort of intensive care patients. Both scales were assessed upon admission to intensive care and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post‐hospital discharge. Analysis was performed using T‐Student/Mann–Whitney, chi‐squared and Cohen's Kappa tests.Results: Successful adaptation of the CFS with minimal changes was achieved, demonstrating its applicability in the evaluated context. The pilot study indicated that CFS‐Es is easy to assess, but some subjectivity in interpretation was noted. CFS‐Es and FRAIL‐Es were applied to 212 patients, revealing variations in frailty prevalence. The concordance and correlation between the CFS and FRAIL scales are robust. These differences suggest that the choice of scale may impact the identification of frail patients. These results emphasise the importance of considering specific characteristics of each scale when assessing frailty in critically ill patients, providing valuable information for clinical implementation and research in this field.Patient or Public Contribution: Assessing frailty upon admission can be helpful in the care of frail patients, allowing the development of specific care plans based on pre‐existing frailty.