↓ Skip to main content

The clinical frailty scale predicts functional decline and mortality when used by junior medical staff: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The clinical frailty scale predicts functional decline and mortality when used by junior medical staff: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0292-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate J. Gregorevic, Ruth E. Hubbard, Benny Katz, Wen K. Lim

Abstract

Increasing frailty is associated with risk of mortality and functional decline in hospitalized older adults, but there is no consensus on the best screening method for use by non-geriatricians. The objective of this study is to determine whether the clinical frailty scale (CFS) can be used to identify patient baseline frailty status in the acute general medical setting when used by junior medical staff using information obtained on routine clinical assessment. This was a prospective cohort study in an acute general medical unit. All patients aged 65 and over admitted to a general medical unit during August and September 2013 were eligible for the study. CFS score at baseline was documented by a member of the treating medical team. Demographic information and outcomes were obtained from medical records. The primary outcomes were functional decline and death within three months. Frailty was assessed in 95 % of 179 eligible patients. 45 % of patients experienced functional decline and 11 % died within three months. 40 % of patients were classified as vulnerable/mildly frail, and 41 % were moderately to severely frail. When patients in residential care were excluded, increasing frailty was associated with functional decline (p = 0.011). Increasing frailty was associated with increasing mortality within three months (p = 0.012). A high proportion of eligible patients had the frailty measure completed, demonstrating the acceptability of the CFS to clinicians. Despite lack of training for medical staff, increasing frailty was correlated with functional decline and mortality supporting the validity of the CFS as a frailty screening tool for clinicians.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 24%
Student > Master 16 19%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Other 8 9%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,558,878
of 14,072,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#347
of 1,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,427
of 265,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,072,263 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 265,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them