↓ Skip to main content

Use of the electronic Frailty Index to identify vulnerable patients: a pilot study in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
35 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Use of the electronic Frailty Index to identify vulnerable patients: a pilot study in primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, September 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x693089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn N Lansbury, Helen Clare Roberts, Esther Clift, Annie Herklots, Nicola Robinson, Avan A Sayer

Abstract

Identifying frailty is key to providing appropriate treatment for older people at high risk of adverse health outcomes. Screening tools proposed for primary care often involve additional workload. The electronic Frailty Index (eFI) has the potential to overcome this issue. To assess the feasibility and acceptability of using the eFI in primary care. Pilot study in one suburban primary care practice in southern England in 2016. Use of the eFI on the primary care TPP SystmOne database was explained to staff at the practice where a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) clinic was being trialled. The practice data manager ran an eFI report for all patients (n = 6670). Date of birth was used to identify patients aged ≥75 years (n = 589). The eFI was determined for patients attending the CGA clinic (n = 18). Practice staff ran the eFI reports in 5 minutes, which they reported was feasible and acceptable. The eFI range was 0.03 to 0.61 (mean 0.23) for all patients aged ≥75 years (mean 83 years, range 75 to 102 years). For CGA patients (mean 82 years, range 75 to 94 years) the eFI range was 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.33). Importantly, the eFI scores identified almost 12% of patients aged ≥75 years in this practice to have severe frailty. It was feasible and acceptable to use the eFI in this pilot study. A higher mean eFI in the CGA patients demonstrated construct validity for frailty identification. Practice staff recognised the potential for the eFI to identify the top 2% of vulnerable patients for avoiding unplanned admissions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Other 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#199,258
of 11,180,013 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#81
of 2,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,206
of 261,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#10
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,180,013 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.