↓ Skip to main content

What do we know about frailty in the acute care setting? A scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,432)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
134 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
What do we know about frailty in the acute care setting? A scoping review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-018-0823-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga Theou, Emma Squires, Kayla Mallery, Jacques S. Lee, Sherri Fay, Judah Goldstein, Joshua J. Armstrong, Kenneth Rockwood

Abstract

The ability of acute care providers to cope with the influx of frail older patients is increasingly stressed, and changes need to be made to improve care provided to older adults. Our purpose was to conduct a scoping review to map and synthesize the literature addressing frailty in the acute care setting in order to understand how to tackle this challenge. We also aimed to highlight the current gaps in frailty research. This scoping review included original research articles with acutely-ill Emergency Medical Services (EMS) or hospitalized older patients who were identified as frail by the authors. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Eric, and Cochrane from January 2000 to September 2015. Our database search initially resulted in 8658 articles and 617 were eligible. In 67% of the articles the authors identified their participants as frail but did not report on how they measured frailty. Among the 204 articles that did measure frailty, the most common disciplines were geriatrics (14%), emergency department (14%), and general medicine (11%). In total, 89 measures were used. This included 13 established tools, used in 51% of the articles, and 35 non-frailty tools, used in 24% of the articles. The most commonly used tools were the Clinical Frailty Scale, the Frailty Index, and the Frailty Phenotype (12% each). Most often (44%) researchers used frailty tools to predict adverse health outcomes. In 74% of the cases frailty predicted the outcome examined, typically mortality and length of stay. Most studies (83%) were conducted in non-geriatric disciplines and two thirds of the articles identified participants as frail without measuring frailty. There was great variability in tools used and more recently published studies were more likely to use established frailty tools. Overall, frailty appears to be a good predictor of adverse health outcomes. For frailty to be implemented in clinical practice frailty tools should help formulate the care plan and improve shared decision making. How this will happen has yet to be determined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 134 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Unspecified 14 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 43%
Unspecified 20 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. 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 10 April 2019.
All research outputs
#147,338
of 13,610,713 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#8
of 1,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,486
of 269,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,610,713 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 1,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 269,781 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 97% 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