Objectives: To determine the feasibility of using the activPAL3^TM activity monitor, and, to describe the activity patterns of residential aged care residents. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Randomly selected aged care facilities within 100 km of the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. Participants: Ambulatory, older (≥60 years) residential aged care adults without cognitive impairment. Measurements: Feasibility was assessed by consent rate, sleep/wear diary completion, and through interviews with staff/participants. Activity patterns (sitting/lying, standing, and stepping) were measured via activPAL3^TM monitors worn continuously for seven days. Times spent in each activity were described and then compared across days of the week and hours of the day using linear mixed models. Results: Consent rate was 48% (n = 41). Activity patterns are described for the 31 participants (mean age 84.2 years) who provided at least one day of valid monitor data. In total, 14 (45%) completed the sleep/wear diary. Participants spent a median (interquartile range) of 12.4 (1.7) h sitting/lying (with 73% of this accumulated in unbroken bouts of ≥30 min), 1.9 (1.3) h standing, and 21.4 (36.7) min stepping during their monitored waking hours per day. Activity did not vary significantly by day of the week (p ≥ 0.05); stepping showed significant hourly variation (p = 0.018). Conclusions: Older adults in residential aged care were consistently highly sedentary. Feasibility considerations for objective activity monitoring identified for this population include poor diary completion and lost monitors.

Aims: While the frailty index (FI) is a continuous variable, an FI score of 0.25 has construct and predictive validity to categorise community-dwelling older adults as frail or non-frail. Our study aimed to explore which FI categories (FI scores and labels) were being used in high impact studies of adults across different care settings and why these categories were being chosen by study authors. Methods: For this systematic scoping review, Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that measured and categorised an FI. Of 1314 articles screened, 303 met the eligibility criteria (community: N = 205; residential aged care: N = 24; acute care: N = 74). For each setting, the 10 studies with the highest field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) were identified and data, including FI scores and labels and justification provided, were extracted and analysed. Results: FI scores used to distinguish frail and non-frail participants varied from 0.12 to 0.45 with 0.21 and 0.25 used most frequently. Additional categories such as mildly, moderately and severely frail were defined inconsistently. The rationale for selecting particular FI scores and labels were reported in most studies, but were not always relevant. Conclusions: High impact studies vary in the way they categorise the FI and while there is some evidence in the community-dweller literature, FI categories have not been well validated in acute and residential aged care. For the time being, in those settings, the FI should be reported as a continuous variable wherever possible. It is important to continue working towards defining frailty categories as variability in FI categorisation impacts the ability to synthesise results and to translate findings into clinical practice.

Background: Sarcopenia is a significant geriatric syndrome with both health care expenditure and personal burden. Most recently, the European Working Group in Sarcopenia in Older Adults has established a consensus definition and assessment criteria for sarcopenia that includes a below‐normal muscle mass and muscle function (either or both of below‐normal muscle strength and physical performance). Using these criteria, work is needed to identify the prevalence and risk factors among the old, and those most susceptible to sarcopenia, the very old. This manuscript describes the recruitment and data collection methodology, and direct burden to participants, among a very old cohort residing in a residential aged care (RAC) setting.Methods: Eleven RAC facilities participated in the study. Potential participants were identified by the facility service manager and then randomised into the study. All participants gave self or substitute decision maker consent. Participants undertook a single one on one assessment that included measures of sarcopenia, functional capacity, cognitive and nutritional health, falls, activity, facility and hospital history, physical activity and assessment burden. A sub‐study of physical activity and sedentary behaviours measured by activPAL3™ inclinometer was also conducted.Results: Of 709 residents, 328 were ineligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy‐three residents were randomised to the study and 102 gave informed or substitute decision maker consent. Participants were 84.5 ± 8.2 years of age and had been in care for 1,204.2 ± 1,220.1 days. The groups need for care was high (Aged Care Funding Instrument score of 2.6 ± 1.7) and they had a below‐normal functional (Short Physical Performance Battery summery score of 3.5 ± 2.4). The larger percentage of participants had no depression and normal cognitive capacity. A total of 33 residents participated in the activPAL study. Each assessment took an average of 27.0 ± 7.0 min, with a low assessment burden reported by participants.Conclusions: The successful assessment of sarcopenia and physical activity in a RAC setting is labour intensive to establish, but feasible to conduct. Low recruitment numbers and the restrictive exclusion criteria, may have limited the accuracy of this work. However, this work is a primary step in establishing the level of sarcopenia and its risk factors for those in end‐of‐life care.

Background: There is currently no consensus as to a standardized tool for frailty measurement in any patient population. In the solid-organ transplantation population, routinely identifying and quantifying frailty in potential transplant candidates would support patients and the multidisciplinary team to make well-informed, individualized, management decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesise the literature regarding frailty measurement in solid-organ transplant (SOT) candidates.Methods: A search of four databases (Cochrane, Pubmed, EMBASE and CINAHL) yielded 3124 studies. 101 studies (including heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant candidate populations) met the inclusion criteria.Results: We found that studies used a wide range of frailty tools (N = 22), including four ‘established’ frailty tools. The most commonly used tools were the Fried Frailty Phenotype and the Liver Frailty Index. Frailty prevalence estimates for this middle-aged, predominantly male, population varied between 2.7% and 100%. In the SOT candidate population, frailty was found to be associated with a range of adverse outcomes, with most evidence for increased mortality (including post-transplant and wait-list mortality), post-operative complications and prolonged hospitalisation. There is currently insufficient data to compare the predictive validity of frailty tools in the SOT population.Conclusion: Overall, there is great variability in the approach to frailty measurement in this population. Preferably, a validated frailty measurement tool would be incorporated into SOT eligibility assessments internationally with a view to facilitating comparisons between patient sub-groups and national and international transplant services with the ultimate goal of improved patient care.