Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Outreach
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • Feedback
    • Alerts
    • Conference
    • eLetters
    • Audio abstracts
    • Past research calls
  • RESEARCH CALL: TELEHEALTH
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Advertisement
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
Advertisement
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Outreach
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • Feedback
    • Alerts
    • Conference
    • eLetters
    • Audio abstracts
    • Past research calls
  • RESEARCH CALL: TELEHEALTH
Research

Frailty assessment in primary health care and its association with unplanned secondary care use: a rapid review

Ben R Davies, Helen Baxter, James Rooney, Phillip Simons, Ann Sephton, Sarah Purdy and Alyson L Huntley
BJGP Open 2018; 2 (1): bjgpopen18X101325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen18X101325
Ben R Davies
1 Senior Research Associate, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ben.davies@bristol.ac.uk
Helen Baxter
2 Senior Research Associate, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Rooney
3 Senior Project Manager, NHS South, Central and West Commissioning Support Unit, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Phillip Simons
4 Clinical Evidence Fellow, NHS South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann Sephton
5 Deputy Clinical Chair and Lead for Emergency and Urgent Care and Community Health Services, NHS South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Purdy
6 Professor of Primary Health Care, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alyson L Huntley
7 Research Fellow, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, , UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background The growing frail, older population is increasing pressure on hospital services. This is directing the attention of clinical commissioning groups towards more comprehensive approaches to managing frailty in the primary healthcare environment.

Aim To review the literature on whether assessment of frailty in primary health care leads to a reduction in unplanned secondary care use.

Design & setting A rapid review involving a systematic search of Medline and Medline In-Process.

Method Relevant data were extracted following the iterative screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify studies in the primary or community healthcare setting which assessed the effect of frailty on unplanned secondary care use between January 2005–June 2016.

Results The review included 11 primary studies: nine observational studies; one randomised controlled trial (RCT); and one non-randomised controlled trial (nRCT). Eight out of nine observational studies reported a positive association between frailty and secondary care utilisation. The RCT and nRCT reported conflicting findings.

Conclusion Older people identified as frail in a primary healthcare setting were more likely to be admitted to hospital. Based on the limited and equivocal trial evidence, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding appropriate tools for the identification and management of frail older people at risk of hospital admission.

  • frailty assessment
  • geriatric assessment
  • primary heath care
  • hospital admission

How this fits in

A growth in the number of frail, older individuals is directing attention towards the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in primary health care. This review explored the assessment of frailty in the primary healthcare setting and its association with unplanned secondary care admissions, for which there are currently no published reviews. Eight of nine observational studies reported a positive association between frailty and secondary care use. One RCT and one nRCT presented equivocal findings. More evidence is needed on frailty assessment and the use of a CGA in primary health care, as well as the acceptability of such tools to the primary healthcare workforce.

Introduction

Frailty is a distinct health state associated with the ageing process;1 it is characterised by a loss of biological reserves throughout multiple organ systems and susceptibility to physiological decompensation after a potentially minor health event.2 Although a definitive operational definition of frailty is yet to be agreed on, two conceptual models dominate the field: The Frailty Index (FI)3 and the Frailty Phenotype (FP).4 The FI identifies frailty as a state, defined as an accumulation of deficits over time. The FI’s deficits comprise an adaptable range of conditions and diseases, from physical to psychosocial.3 The FP distinguishes frailty as a syndrome identified by a pre-defined set of five criteria: involuntary weight loss; exhaustion; slow gait speed; poor handgrip strength; and sedentary behaviour.4

There is global concern that existing healthcare services cannot meet the demand of an increasing frail population.5 However, frailty is not an inevitable part of ageing and the condition can be improved through appropriate management.1 One suggested approach to tackling the challenges of an ageing population is primary prevention.5 Conceptual models such as the FP and FI have led to the development of several frailty assessment instruments, which provide the opportunity to develop interventions against such age-related conditions. One such approach to manage frailty is the CGA, the purpose of which is to conduct a holistic, interdisciplinary, and multidimensional frailty assessment,1 and subsequently develop a management plan, comprising treatment and follow-up, linking medical and social care.6

The British Geriatric Society (BGS) suggests that healthcare professionals assess frailty during routine primary healthcare encounters and then refer to a geriatrics team to perform a CGA.1 There is evidence that the use of a CGA to guide treatment significantly improves the chances of a patient being alive and in their own home 12 months after an emergency hospital admission,7 and this is of increasing interest to primary healthcare policy makers. A shortened form of the CGA has been developed for use in primary health care with the objective of identifying frail individuals most at risk of requiring secondary care admission.8 Despite there being some evidence for the effectiveness of conducting frailty assessments within primary health care and its role in reducing hospital admissions, there is no evidence to date supporting the specific use of a shortened CGA in that setting, as far as the authors are aware.

Considering this, a rapid review of the literature was conducted to identify if assessment of frailty and/or management of frailty, including CGA, in PHC lead to reductions in unplanned secondary care use.

Method

The literature search followed standard methodology informed by the latest Cochrane systematic review guidance.9 The authors searched Medline and Medline In-Process from 1 January 2005–8 June 2016, and identified 984 entries. The search structure is available from the authors on request.

Eligibility criteria

The search strategy sought studies meeting the following criteria:

  • Population/intervention: the population included frail adults receiving an intervention involving any type of frailty assessment conducted by primary or community healthcare professionals.

  • Control: any type of control group.

  • Outcome: any measurement assessing the effect of frailty on unplanned secondary care use.

  • Design: quantitative and qualitative studies.

Non-English language studies were considered if they had an English abstract on which to assess their eligibility.

References were managed using EndNote software and screened by two authors using the above eligibility criteria. Abstracts were initially screened and then full papers of potential studies were screened to produce the final inclusion list. Any disagreements at either stage were resolved using a third reviewer.

Data were extracted into a custom-designed table to capture all relevant information. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess risk of bias for trials identified in the rapid review.10

Results

The review identified 11 primary studies: nine observational studies; one RCT; and one nRCT. More study detail is provided in a brief summary of the observational and trial evidence (Table 1). Seven studies were conducted in Western Europe, including the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland,11 Spain,12 the Netherlands,13,14 Switzerland,15 Portugal,16 and the UK.2 Two studies were conducted in Australia,17,18 one in Singapore,19 and one in the US.20 Risk of bias was generally low for both RCTs and high for the nRCT, due to its lack of randomisation. No relevant qualitative studies were identified.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Summary of evidence for included studies

Of the nine observational studies identified, eight reported a positive association between frailty and secondary care utilisation. The review identified only one RCT and one nRCT; in these trials frailty assessment preceded an intervention.11,12 Both trials, however, were considered relevant given the application of the frailty assessment to the care received by intervention participants.

Retrospective studies

The electronic health record data of individuals aged 65–95 years from the UK was used to develop and validate the electronic Frailty Index (eFI).2 The eFI was externally validated in 516 007 primary healthcare patients (mean age 75 ± 7.3 years) over a 3-year period. At the 3-year time point, hazard ratios demonstrated that patients with ‘severe’ frailty were at 4.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.51 to 4.80) times greater risk of an unplanned secondary care admission than those identified as ‘fit’. The eFI predicted secondary care utilisation with fair predictive validity at year 1 (cStatistic 0.71), although the calibration estimate (variance explained by eFI) for the hospital admissions outcome was low. The eFI algorithm was incorporated into the System One GP health record system for feasibility testing in 2014, and in 2016 was introduced via the EMISWEB and Vision clinical systems.21

A Community Assessment Risk Screen (CARS) and the Probability of Repeated Admission (Pra) tool was used to detect hospital admission risk of 500 community-dwelling patients in Spain aged ≥65 years.12 Those classified at higher risk of admission by both the CARS and Pra tools reported more per-patient hospital admissions (P≤0.001) and greater lengths of hospital stay (P≤0.001) in the subsequent 12 months. However, poor predictive values (area under the curve [AUC] and positive predictive values [PPV]) suggest neither tool efficiently identifies risk of secondary care utilisation.

Cross-sectional studies

An Australian study utilised the data of 1501 individuals aged ≥65 years to identify frailty by applying the FI model.17 Participants classed as frail by the FI were 2.39 (95% CI = 1.74 to 3.29) times more likely to be admitted to hospital compared to non-frail participants during the previous 12 months (n = 1490 for participants with hospital admissions data).

The Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) criteria (weight loss or shrinking, weakness, exhaustion, slowness, and low activity) were used to identify frailty in 1674 men aged ≥70 years, living in Sydney, Australia.18 Compared to ‘robust’ men (0 frailty criteria), ‘frail’ men (≥3 frailty criteria) were 3.29 (95% CI = 2.18 to 4.96) times more likely to spend ≥1 night admitted to hospital during the previous 12 months.

Data from the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Study was used for the development of a primary healthcare clinical frailty risk indicator (FRI) in 1685 patients (mean age 67 ± 8 years).19 The development study evaluated how frailty risk factors predict frailty, as defined by five criteria validated in the CHS.4 In the validation cohort (n = 2478), participants were 1.14 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.24; P = 0.002) times more likely to be admitted to hospital during the 2-year follow-up period per unit increase in FRI score. However, the predictive validity of the FRI with regards secondary care utilisation was poor (AUC = 0.63).

A further study investigated the association between responses of the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES) and secondary care utilisation in 2033 patients aged ≥65 years from Ireland.11 Over the previous 12 months, hospital inpatient stays had been reported more frequently (21% versus 12%, P≤0.001), as were emergency department visits, in those classed by the VES as ‘high’ compared to ‘low’ vulnerability.

Longitudinal studies

In a longitudinal study from the Netherlands, 520 patients (mean age 77 ± 5 years) were assessed for frailty by their GP at baseline, using the EASY-Care Two step Older persons Screening (EASY-Care TOS) tool.13 During the 12-month follow-up, those classed as ‘frail’ reported a greater proportion of hospital admissions than their ‘non-frail’ counterparts (39 [22%] versus 41 [12.9%], P = 0.01).

The PRIME-MD (primary healthcare evaluation of mental disorders) screening instrument was employed in a study from the US exploring the validity of physical symptoms identified during routine primary healthcare visits for predicting hospitalisations in 3498 adults (mean age 69 ± 7 years).20 Compared to those with 0–2 symptoms, participants with 8–12 symptoms were 1.4 times more likely to be admitted to secondary care, (95% CI = 1.0 to 1.9, P≤0.05).

However, in a study of 252 community-based participants aged ≥60 years there was no evidenced association between frailty and secondary care utilisation.16 The authors compared three frailty measures: the FP, Groningen Frailty Indicator, and Tilburg Frailty Indicator for the prediction of secondary care utilisation over the previous 12 months. Given the small sample size at follow-up (n = 95), the authors highlight their study’s lack of statistical power.

Controlled trials

An nRCT of The Care Well primary healthcare programme based in the Netherlands found no evidence of effect in moderating hospital admission rates in the intervention compared to control group.14 This 12-month intervention was conducted in 536 participants (intervention n = 287, control n =249) aged ≥70 years who were identified as frail using the Easy-Care TOS tool. The trial was non-randomised and lasted 12 months, which may have been insufficient for establishing effective multidisciplinary collaborations.

In Switzerland, an in-home health consultation programme was delivered by advanced practice nurses (APNs) to 461 (intervention n = 231, control n = 230) German-speaking, community-dwelling individuals aged ≥80 years, and was evaluated over 9 months.15 Multilevel analysis showed no evidence of effect, although group comparisons showed overall secondary care admission rates were lower in the intervention compared to control group (47 [23%] versus 68 [33%], P = 0.03, relative risk ratio = 0.70). The lack of change in other healthcare services suggested the intervention did not replace existing services but was complementary to them. The study employed un-blinded data collection and self-reported measures over 3-month periods, and thus reporting bias and misreporting is a possibility.

Reviews

An International Academy of Nutrition and Aging taskforce reviewed the evidence for gait speed assessed at usual pace to identify risk of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people.22 Twenty-seven articles were identified, five of which assessed hospitalisations as an outcome. The review reported that lower gait speed was associated with higher likelihood of secondary care utilisation.

Discussion

Summary

This review identified that the majority of evidence for the effect of frailty assessment in primary health care on unplanned secondary care is observational, with eight of the nine observational studies included suggesting a positive association between the identification of frailty and secondary care utilisation. Of the trial evidence, one RCT presented reduced admission rates following a health consultation programme in the home and one nRCT was ineffective in moderating hospital admissions. The reduced secondary care admission rates in the RCT suggest that its interventional care package, which incorporated frailty assessments in addition to usual care, is effective.15 In contrast, a multicomponent, multidisciplinary programme was ineffective at reducing admissions.14

Strengths and limitations

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review to explore frailty assessment in primary health care and its association with unplanned secondary care use. However, due to the lack of related research including secondary care use as an outcome, this focused review yielded a limited number of eligible studies. Additionally, due to time constraints, this rapid review searched only Medline and Medline In-Process, which may have restricted the number of eligible studies identified.

The three trials included in this review had methodological issues that reflect the limited quality of evidence in this area.

Comparison with existing literature

The latest best practice guideline by the BGS, recommends the following tools for triaging individuals for a CGA: gait speed and the timed-up-and-go test for clinical staff during routine assessment; and the PRISMA-7 questionnaire for self-assessment tests.1 However, this recommendation is based on a review exploring test characteristics of tools for identifying frailty23 but which did not explore association with hospital admission.

A 2006 systematic review24 explored the characteristics of published CGA interventions across a variety of settings and the association with emergency department utilisation, as opposed to hospital admissions. Interventions within secondary care were mostly short-term and had little effect, whereas most interventions in primary care, outpatient, and home-care settings reduced emergency department utilisation. Like in the current review, there was heterogeneity among the included interventions; this precluded the use of meta-analysis.

Implications for research

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this review suggests that older people identified as frail in a primary healthcare setting are more likely to be admitted to hospital, based on the observational evidence. However, from the small number of trials identified, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the relationship between frailty assessment and subsequent management and prevention of hospital admissions in frail older individuals, nor to recommend a specific tool. The recent introduction of the eFI to GP clinical systems in the UK may prove useful in automatically identifying more at-risk patients during routine encounters. However, how the wider primary healthcare community receive the eFI and how it can translate into effective frailty management strategies is yet to be ascertained, due to the limited time since its introduction.

An important consideration for frailty assessment in primary health care is not only its validity, but the feasibility and practicality of application. The frailty assessments described in the literature varied in mode of delivery and application, offering a variety of approaches for consideration by primary health care. However, there was heterogeneity with regard to the frailty tools utilised in the observational evidence; for instance, the CHS criteria and the EASY-Care TOS were the only tools utilised more than once in the nine studies. Additionally, where predictive validity was reported, it was generally low (reported as ‘poor’12,19 or ‘fair’2).

Although encouraging, evidence for the effect of primary healthcare frailty assessments on unplanned hospital admissions is limited and brings to question whether investment by commissioners is warranted. However, both the frail older population and associated unplanned hospital admission rates are continuing to increase. More robust research is needed on how to address frailty in primary health care as well as the acceptability of assessment tools to the primary healthcare workforce.

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of Bristol and the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund [105612/Z/14/Z].

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgements

None.

  • Received May 5, 2017.
  • Accepted August 14, 2017.
  • Copyright © The Authors 2018

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Turner G,
    2. Clegg A,
    3. British Geriatrics Society,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Best practice guidelines for the management of frailty: a British Geriatrics Society, Age UK and Royal College of General Practitioners report. Age Ageing 43(6):744–747, doi:10.1093/ageing/afu138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Clegg A,
    2. Bates C,
    3. Young J,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age Ageing 45(3):353–360, doi:10.1093/ageing/afw039.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Rockwood K,
    2. Song X,
    3. MacKnight C,
    4. et al.
    (2005) A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 173(5):489–495, doi:10.1503/cmaj.050051.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Fried LP,
    2. Tangen CM,
    3. Walston J,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56(3):M146–M157, doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bergman H,
    2. Karunananthan S,
    3. Robledo LM,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Understanding and meeting the needs of the older population: a global challenge. Can Geriatr J 16(2):61–65, doi:10.5770/cgj.16.60.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Stuck AE,
    2. Iliffe S
    (2011) Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults. BMJ 343:d6799, doi:10.1136/bmj.d6799.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ellis G,
    2. Whitehead MA,
    3. Robinson D,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343:d6553, doi:10.1136/bmj.d6553.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lyndon H,
    2. Stevens G
    Toolkit for general practice in supporting older people with frailty and achieving the requirements of the Unplanned Admissions Enhanced Service [2014]. http://www.bgs.org.uk/pdfs/2015_gen_prac_frailty_toolkit.pdf. accessed 5 Dec 2017 .
  9. 9.↵
    1. Higgins JPT,
    2. Green S
    1. Lefebvre C,
    2. Manheimer E,
    3. Glanville J,
    4. et al.
    (2011) in Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], eds Higgins JPT, Green S (London). Chapter 6: Searching for studies. http://www.handbook.cochrane.org. accessed 18 Dec 2017 .
  10. 10.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Gøtzsche PC,
    4. et al.
    (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928. d5928.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. McGee HM,
    2. O'Hanlon A,
    3. Barker M,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Vulnerable older people in the community: relationship between the Vulnerable Elders Survey and health service use. J Am Geriatr Soc 56(1):8–15, doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01540.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Doñate-Martínez A,
    2. Garcés Ferrer J,
    3. Ródenas Rigla F
    (2014) Application of screening tools to detect risk of hospital readmission in elderly patients in Valencian Healthcare System (VHS) (Spain). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 59(2):408–414, doi:10.1016/j.archger.2014.06.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. van Kempen JA,
    2. Schers HJ,
    3. Philp I,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Predictive validity of a two-step tool to map frailty in primary care. BMC Med 13:287, doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0519-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ruikes FG,
    2. Zuidema SU,
    3. Akkermans RP,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Multicomponent program to reduce functional decline in frail elderly people: a cluster controlled trial. J Am Board Fam Pract 29(2):209–217, doi:10.3122/jabfm.2016.02.150214.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Imhof L,
    2. Naef R,
    3. Wallhagen MI,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Effects of an advanced practice nurse in-home health consultation program for community-dwelling persons aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(12):2223–2231, doi:10.1111/jgs.12026.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Coelho T,
    2. Paúl C,
    3. Gobbens RJ,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Frailty as a predictor of short-term adverse outcomes. PeerJ 3:e1121, doi:10.7717/peerj.1121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Dent E,
    2. Hoon E,
    3. Karnon J,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Frailty and health service use in rural South Australia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 62:53–58, doi:10.1016/j.archger.2015.09.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Rochat S,
    2. Cumming RG,
    3. Blyth F,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Frailty and use of health and community services by community-dwelling older men: the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. Age Ageing 39(2):228–233, doi:10.1093/ageing/afp257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ng TP,
    2. Feng L,
    3. Nyunt MS,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Frailty in older persons: multisystem risk factors and the Frailty Risk Index (FRI). J Am Med Dir Assoc 15(9):635–642, doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2014.03.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Sha MC,
    2. Callahan CM,
    3. Counsell SR,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Physical symptoms as a predictor of health care use and mortality among older adults. Am J Med 118(3):301–306, doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.12.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber
    Development of an electronic Frailty Index (eFI) 2014. NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber . http://clahrc-yh.nihr.ac.uk/our-themes/primary-care-based-management-of-frailty-in-older-people/projects/development-of-an-electronic-frailty-index-efi. accessed 5 Dec 2017 .
  22. 22.↵
    1. Abellan van Kan G,
    2. Rolland Y,
    3. Andrieu S,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an International Academy on Nutrition and Aging (IANA) Task Force. J Nutr Health Aging 13(10):881–889, doi:10.1007/s12603-009-0246-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Clegg A,
    2. Rogers L,
    3. Young J
    (2015) Diagnostic test accuracy of simple instruments for identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review. Age Ageing 44(1):148–152, doi:10.1093/ageing/afu157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. McCusker J,
    2. Verdon J
    (2006) Do geriatric interventions reduce emergency department visits? A systematic review. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61(1):53–62, doi:10.1093/gerona/61.1.53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 2, Issue 1
April 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Frailty assessment in primary health care and its association with unplanned secondary care use: a rapid review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Frailty assessment in primary health care and its association with unplanned secondary care use: a rapid review
Ben R Davies, Helen Baxter, James Rooney, Phillip Simons, Ann Sephton, Sarah Purdy, Alyson L Huntley
BJGP Open 2018; 2 (1): bjgpopen18X101325. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen18X101325

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Frailty assessment in primary health care and its association with unplanned secondary care use: a rapid review
Ben R Davies, Helen Baxter, James Rooney, Phillip Simons, Ann Sephton, Sarah Purdy, Alyson L Huntley
BJGP Open 2018; 2 (1): bjgpopen18X101325. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen18X101325
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • frailty assessment
  • geriatric assessment
  • primary heath care
  • hospital admission

More in this TOC Section

  • Perspectives on expert generalist practice among japanese family doctor educators: A qualitative study
  • Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review
  • Patient complaints in general practice seen through the lens of professionalism: a retrospective observational study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

@BJGPOpen's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2021 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795