Frailty and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

Heayon Lee; Eunju Lee; Il-Young Jang

doi:10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e16

Journal List > J Korean Med Sci > v.35(3) > 1141081

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Lee, and Jang: Frailty and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

Review Article

Medicine General & Policy

Custom metadata:

Status: Forthcoming

Journal of Korean Medical Science 2019; 35(3): e16.

Published online: 20 December 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e16

Frailty and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

Heayon Lee

, Eunju Lee

, Il-Young Jang

Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Address for Correspondence: Il-Young Jang, MD. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea. onezero2@gmail.com

Received 30 August 2019 Accepted 9 December 2019

The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Frailty is defined as a reduced physiologic reserve vulnerable to external stressors. For older individuals, frailty plays a decisive role in increasing adverse health outcomes in most clinical situations. Many tools or criteria have been introduced to define frailty in recent years, and the definition of frailty has gradually converged into several consensuses. Frail older adults often have multi-domain risk factors in terms of physical, psychological, and social health. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is the process of identifying and quantifying frailty by examining various risky domains and body functions, which is the basis for geriatric medicine and research. CGA provides physicians with information on the reversible area of frailty and the leading cause of deterioration in frail older adults. Therefore frailty assessment based on understanding CGA and its relationship with frailty, can help establish treatment strategies and intervention in frail older adults. This review article summarizes the recent consensus and evidence of frailty and CGA.

Keywords: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, Frailty

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is defined as a condition of decreased physiologic reserve that leads to a vulnerable state and increase the risk of adverse health outcomes when exposed to a stressor in older adults.1 Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates medical, functional, psychological, and social capabilities, to eventually assess frailty status and various geriatric syndromes. Frailty assessment and CGA can be applied in risk stratifications such as mortality or morbidity, disease-specific treatment-related risk assessment, goal of care and advanced care planning, and frailty-targeted intervention.2 However, a full CGA is rather time-consuming and its effectiveness is far limited without inter-department collaborative care and frailty-targeted optimized intervention programs.3 In this review article, we summarize the clear benefits and limitations of frailty assessment and CGA in various clinical settings and decision making. We also review major successful clinical intervention trials that showed significant evidence of beneficial effects to overcome the drawbacks of CGA. This article aims to help many medical institutions and policy makers to establish intervention programs based on frailty assessment and CGA services.

CURRENT CONSENSUS OF FRAILTY ASSESSMENT

Frailty is defined as a clinical syndrome driven by age-related biologic changes that drive physical characteristics of frailty and eventually, adverse outcomes. Frailty has been conceptualized as a pre-disability state, however it can also be described as co-existing with disability.4

There are many suggested models and definitions to operationalize frailty assessment in various settings. Frailty assessment has identified older adults at increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including mortality, disability, worsening mobility, falls, hospitalization and death.5 The most well validated and widely-accepted tools to measure frailty are the phenotypic definition of frailty and the accumulation of deficits definition of frailty. An important difference between these two conceptualizations of frailty is in the interpretation of aging and the frailty mechanism.

Phenotypic frailty proposed by Fried and colleagues, views frailty as a biologic syndrome of decreased physiologic reserve. This results in the decrease of resiliency and adaptive capacity causing vulnerability to stressors, leading to the physical characteristics of frailty.6 Intentionally measured five items, namely weakness assessed by grip strength, slowness from usual gait speed, exhaustion derived from self-reported fatigue questionnaire, and low activity by estimated energy expenditure calculated from physical activity questionnaire, and unintentional weight loss were validated based on the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). Frailty was considered when 3 out of 5 of the cut points were met. Phenotypic frailty validated by the CHS criteria is less time-consuming and is closely related to sarcopenia, neuroendocrine decline, immune dysfunction and adverse health outcomes.7 However, because only limited items are evaluated, an accurate evaluation of the body function needs to be performed to reduce the bias of the test. Recently there is a call for more specific language that clarifies conceptual differences between frailty definitions. There are recommendations to term phenotypic frailty as “physical frailty.”8 Further research will help clarify the relationship between “physical frailty” and sarcopenia.

The accumulation of deficits definition of frailty, often termed as the frailty index (FI) is based on the cumulative effect of medical, functional and psychosocial age-related deficits. The greater the number of deficit one has, the higher the likelihood of adverse health outcomes. The FI developed by Rockwood and colleagues, is a count of 70 clinical deficits from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Each deficit is mapped to the interval 0–1 to represent the severity of the problem.9 This approach has benefits as follows: 1) it can be generated by any healthcare data; 2) it contains self-reported items and measurement items; 3) it is expressed as a continuous scale and can be compared as a time series.9 However, in constructing the FI caution must be taken: 1) at least 30–40 or more items need to be included in the measurements; 2) domain and items should be weighed equally; 3) it does not have to be a 70-item scale like Rockwood and Mitnitski9 suggested.

In summary, frailty has no gold standard measure, however there are two commonly used frailty models. The frailty phenotype or “physical frailty” approach, views frailty as a syndrome whereas the FI approach views frailty as a spectrum of aging.8 9 Frailty phenotype itself can detect high risk patients, however it is difficult to work out the causal relationship between the risk domains. The FI is known to predict death better than the frailty phenotype.10 11 Nevertheless, the FI contains disability as an item, therefore it may not discriminate incidence of disability or future functional decline as well as the frailty phenotype.12 13 Also, when constructing a FI, the domain composed of self-reported items does not necessarily have predictive power inferior to a physical performance-based measure.14

Frailty phenotype is more feasible for screening, whereas FI, derived from CGA, is better suited for management and follow-up. Therefore before establishing a frailty assessment it is important to apprehend the systemic pros and cons of each frailty assessment tool.

CGA AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH FRAILTY ASSESSMENT

CGA has been around for more than 3 decades and is one of the cornerstones of modern geriatric care and helps to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long-term follow-up.15 The core domains of CGA are functional status, cognition, emotional status, nutritional status, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and geriatric syndromes (fall risk, delirium, urinary incontinence, dentition, visual, or hearing impairments. In a new chapter of the recent edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, CGA is introduced as the best way to evaluate health status and care need of older adults.16 Nonetheless, CGA is resource intensive and is difficult to interpret and use for risk stratifications or frailty classifications.

Screening for frailty has been recommended to identify older adults who would most benefit from a CGA.17 Frailty assessment using the frailty phenotype-5 items validated by the CHS criteria is less time-consuming in assessing frailty and its severity. However because only limited items are evaluated it lacks information to build strategy for frailty intervention.6 7 Therefore it needs to be followed by a CGA to develop an interventional plan.

On the other hand, deficit accumulation model which calculates FI is more time-consuming. Nevertheless it provides a more quantitative value of frailty and can acquire information on the vulnerability domain and reversible cause which has substantial benefits.9 FI can be calculated using items from the standard CGA and does not require a separate CGA process.18 19 The FI-CGA was initiated by both using data from a standardized CGA and data derived from the clinical examination of a population study.18 19 The FI-CGA correlated highly with an empirical FI and was associated with higher risk of death and institutionalization.

Fig. 1 shows the flow diagram of the frailty assessment process. As mentioned above, detailed frailty assessment is burdensome especially if applied to all older adults. Therefore frailty screening is more efficient in a large population as a first step of frailty assessment.20 However in high risk older patients or patients undergoing interventions that have a high likelihood of treatment-related adverse outcomes, detailed frailty assessment from the beginning may be more effective.

Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the frailty assessment process.

CGA = comprehensive geriatric assessment, FI = frailty index, CSHA = Canadian Study of Health and Aging, SHARE = Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe.

^aFrailty screening can be omitted due to clinician's decision if comprehensive geriatric assessment is more necessary or available.

CGA can be modified to fit a purpose. Operationalizing phenotypic frailty can be adapted and altered by measurements based on CGA.11 We need to try and evaluate all physical domains in CGA, however it can differ due to clinical settings and subspecialty.21

EXPANDING APPLICATION OF FRAILTY ASSESSMENT AND CGA ON VARIOUS CLINICAL SPECIALTIES

Various clinical specialties are beginning to adapt frailty assessment and CGA into their treatment plans. Primarily in disease entities with life-threatening burden, significant functional decline, or a large amount of treatment-related stress, frailty assessment and CGA has had impact in deciding their treatment strategies.

In the area of surgery, frailty is an independent risk factor for mortality, morbidity, length of stay, and postoperative complication.4 22 Frailty assessment has been most widely used in orthogeriatrics for hip fracture surgery. FI calculated during routine CGA of post-operative hip fracture patients, was significantly associated with adverse outcome including mortality and length of hospital stay.23 Also, frailty was associated with increased length of stay, complications after surgery and discharge to rehabilitation facilities in fracture patients.24

To establish treatment and discharge strategies for trauma elderly patients, the 15-item trauma-specific frailty index (TSFI) was validated from various centers. This TSFI, which consists of comorbidities, daily activities, health attitudes, sexual function, and nutrition domains can also be assessed by the caregiver. It is an independent predictor of unfavorable discharge if greater than 0.27.25 Also, to determine frailty for geriatric patients undergoing emergency general surgery, the 15-variable Emergency general surgery specific frailty index (EGSFI) was validated in a prospective cohort.26 The EGSFI-based frailty status significantly predicted postoperative complications (odd ratio, 7.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7–19.8), but age was not a relevant factor. In patients undergoing kidney transplantation, the frailty phenotype showed significant ability to distinguish patients at high-risk of death or early readmission.27 For older patients with end-stage liver disease waiting liver transplantation, researchers found that the frailty status determined the deterioration of quality of life rather than severity of liver disease.28 Guidelines from American College of Surgeons for Surgery and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also emphasized frailty assessment in acute care settings or preoperative period as a new screening criterion for fitness.9 23

Oncology is one of the areas where frailty is most widely integrated into clinical practice. Previous reports have consistently shown that frailty status increased the risk of all-cause mortality, postoperative complication, and chemotherapy-related adverse events. Therefore the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network, International Society of Geriatric Oncology and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommend frailty assessment and CGA for older cancer patients to detect unrecognized health problems and treatment-related risks.29

The field of geriatric cardiology is also expanding to offer a CGA approach within a cardiology practice. A 2011 white paper from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology acknowledged that geriatricians provide skills that “augment quality and capacity of cardiac specialists to meet the needs of their older patients.”30 Particularly in treatment of aortic valve stenosis, the frailty concept is best implemented. The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial tried to assess the frailty status in various methods and revealed that TAVR was superior to SAVR at preventing death, stroke, or rehospitalization in low-risk patients ≥ 70 years with aortic stenosis.31 In the same year, another research group conducted a prospective cohort study called The Frailty Assessment Before Cardiac Surgery and Transcatheter Interventions study, which implemented frailty screening and CGA method to patients receiving aortic valve replacement and showed frailty trajectories to predict functional outcomes.32 Clinical trials on perioperative care and interventions to optimize functional outcomes are ongoing in the field of cardiology.32

Recently, frailty has been grafted into relatively younger patients. Rheumatologists constructed a FI based on the deficit-accumulation concept to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and validated to differentiate patients vulnerable to adverse outcomes.33

In the UK, electronic frailty index (eFI) was recently developed and validated using routinely collected primary care electronic health record data. The eFI has robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and nursing home admission in older people with different frail trajectories.34 Recently the use of eFI has been extended for utilization in community healthcare services.35

In summary, frailty assessment is useful for identification of those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and for risk stratifications to assist in clinical decision making. The value of CGA is greater in frail older adults as CGA identifies the impairments. Before establishing a frailty assessment and CGA in clinical settings, it is important to design an assessment system that reflects the clinical course of each disease.

IMPORTANCE OF INTERVENTION AFTER FRAILTY ASSESSMENT AND CGA IMPLEMENTATION

Cautions have been raised against rushing to implement frailty assessment and CGA in general clinical settings. The most persuasive evidence of CGA comes from programs that rely on specialized inpatient units and long hospital stays. A striking, large-scaled, randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that a one-time frailty assessment by a consultative team cannot improve mortality and functional status for hospitalized patients.36 They emphasized that hospitalized frail older patients only benefit from CGA when optimized management programs are accompanied continuously.

The benefits of CGA are conflicting in short-term consultation settings.37 38 CGA by a consultation team with limited follow-up did not improve health or survival of hospitalized patients.36 37 This is because results of the consultations and geriatric recommendations are not all accepted and implied causing limited effectiveness of frailty assessments.36 Therefore continuous management system beyond simple one-time evaluation, frailty-targeted intervention programs, and a close inter-department communication system should be accompanied.

It is known that physical frailty is a manageable condition that can be targeted for intervention. There are 4 possible treatments that appeared to have some efficacy in the treatment of frailty; 1) exercise (resistance and aerobic), 2) caloric and protein support, 3) vitamin D, 4) reduction of polypharmacy.39 40 Exercise in frail individuals increase functional performance, decrease hospitalizations and falls.39 Protein-calorie supplementation is effective in the treatment of weight loss, increase in muscle mass and grip strength.41 Vitamin D supplementation is also known to reduce falls, hip fractures and mortality.42 43 Polypharmacy, a possible major contributor to the pathogenesis of frailty can be reduced to decrease costs and medication side effects in frail populations.44 45

Multifactorial interventions combining exercise, behavioral therapy, nutrition, and cognitive training are being developed. Individually tailored multifactorial interventions was found to improve frailty status and physical function.40 Therefore, it is essential to develop and utilize interventional managements that can aim to reverse or provide support in areas of impairment identified on CGA.

FRAILTY-TARGETED INTERVENTION IN VARIOUS CLINICAL SETTINGS

Interventions in hospital settings

Some models of interventional frailty management based on CGA in hospital settings have shown benefits (Table 1).46 47 48 49 One of the most successful and effective model to date is the orthogeriatric model.46 47 50 51 52 53 54 Various studies reported that co-management with a geriatrician shows benefit for hip fracture patients in reducing hospital stay complications, mortality, readmissions, and delirium.50 51 52 53 54 Programmed intervention by geriatricians is focused on the comorbidity management, review of drug regimens, pain, nutrition, osteoporosis, prevention of falls, management of delirium, depression, early mobilization and initiation of rehabilitation.47 54 55 In Korea, there is a report from a single tertiary hospital that CGA and frailty-targeted intervention programs for hip fracture patients selected under orthopedic surgeons in the emergency room significantly reduced the length of stay.56

Table 1

Previous studies and meta-analyses on frailty intervention in hospital settings

Clinical settings	Type of study	No. of trials	Type of intervention	Main findings of intervention
Clinical settings	Type of study	No. of trials	Type of intervention	Mortality	Adm/readm (length of stay)	Functional status
Orthogeriatrics	Meta-analysis46	18 RCTs	Multidisciplinary	Decreased^a in-hospital & long-term mortality	Length of stay: heterogenous	Decreased^a post-op delirium
Orthogeriatrics	Meta-analysis47	7 RCTs	Multidisciplinary	Decreased^a in-hospital & long-term mortality	Decreased length of stay	Little or no difference of major post-op complication & delirium
Solid cancers	Systematic review48	3 RCTs	Multidisciplinary	Improved^a survival	Decreased length of stay	Improved quality of life
Emergency hospital admission	Meta-analysis49	22 RCTs	Multidisciplinary	Decreased mortality	Decreased length of stay	Decreased functional decline
Emergency hospital admission	Meta-analysis49	22 RCTs	Multidisciplinary	Decreased mortality	Decreased length of stay	Improved cognitive functioning

RCT = randomized controlled trials, Adm = admission, Readm = readmission.

^aStatistically significant.

There are still only a few reports on randomized studies evaluating the effectiveness of CGA-linked interventions in geriatric oncology.57 58 The examples of interventions involve changes in current chronic medication, nutritional care, memory evaluation, social support and psychological care. Further trials on CGA based geriatric interventions are ongoing.48

In older adults admitted to hospital as an emergency, they were significantly more likely to survive admission and return home, fewer will die or experience deterioration and more will have improved cognitive functioning if they undergo CGAs while they are inpatients.49

Interventions in community settings

The prevalence of frailty is estimated to be 10% in community dwelling older adults and increases up to 60% in those with advanced cardiovascular disease.59 Several randomized controlled trials have tested the effect of interventions targeting mainly physical inactivity, nutritional status, depression or falls in community settings shown in Table 2.60 61 62 63 64 The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders pilot study reported that a 12-month physical activity intervention was associated with 9% lower frailty prevalence.61

Table 2

Previous studies on frailty intervention in community settings

Country	Type of study	No. of participants	Type of intervention	Functional status
USA	RCT60	188	Home-based physical therapy 6 mon	Prevent decline in ADL/IADL, mobility and physical performance
USA	RCT61	424	Moderate-intensity physical activity program for 1 yr	Improved SPPB score & 400 m walk test
Australia	RCT62	241	Individualized multidisciplinary intervention for 1 yr; exercise, nutrition, psychologic support	Improved CHS frailty score and SPPB score
Singapore	RCT63	246	4 intervention programs for 12–24 wk; physical, nutritional, cognitive, combined	Improved CHS frailty score
Korea	Designed-delay study64	187	24 wk multicomponent program; exercise, nutrition, depression, deprescribing, home hazard	Sustained benefit up to 1 year on physical function, frailty, sarcopenia, depressive symptoms and nutrition

RCT = randomized controlled trials, ADL = activities of daily living, IADL = instrumental activities of daily living, SPPB = short physical performance battery, CHS = cardiovascular health study.

For a recent decade, there have been several frailty-targeted intervention trials in the community settings in Korea, most of which are targeted towards vulnerable older adults. A 24-week multicomponent program for socioeconomically vulnerable older adults that consisted of group exercise, nutritional supplementation, depression management, deprescribing medications, and home hazard reductions, sustained beneficial effects up to 1 year.64 Therefore CGA based intervention programs can potentially promote healthy aging in community dwelling older adults.

Interventions in nursing home settings

Nursing home patients are shown to be very frail. A systemic review identified 9 studies with a total of 1,373 nursing home patients, and reported that the prevalence of frail and prefrail were 52.3% and 40.2%.65 As the Korean society rapidly changes, nursing homes have increasingly become the site where many of the older adults spend their final years. According to the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, in 2012 a total of 36,052 people died in nursing homes, a 60 percent increase compared to that in 2009.66

There have been task force discussions to promote early screening of frailty in nursing homes.67 The FRAIL-NH scale has been developed to identify frail persons in nursing homes.68 It is comprised of 7 items; energy, transferring, mobility, continence, weight loss, feeding and dressing. In Korea, there has been a study that measured frailty with the FRAIL-NH scale which used data obtained from the inpatient's data set in long-term care hospitals.69

Given a highly prevalence of frailty and disability in nursing homes, intervention trials to reverse frailty status or physical function are limited. Rather, most trials are mainly focused on preventing further functional decline or maintaining quality of life. Table 3 shows previous interventions for frail older adults in nursing homes.70 71 72 73 74 Also nutritional interventions such as protein supplement to prevent functional decline in nursing home patients are in progress.75 However, intervention trials for nursing homes are still lacking and need more evidence and programs.

Table 3

Previous studies and meta-analyses on frailty intervention in nursing homes

Type of study	No. of trials/participants	Type of intervention	Main findings of intervention
Meta-analyses70	22 RCTs	Functional targeting program	Improved movement, balance, ADL
Meta-analyses70	22 RCTs	Functional targeting program	Improved mood, affect, behavioral problems
Meta-analyses71	6 RCTs	Exercise program	Improved motor performances
Meta-analyses72	17 RCTs	Fall prevention program	Uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the rate of falls
RCT73	70 Participants	Mood program	Improved depressive symptoms and cognitive status
Meta-analyses74	10 RCTs	Education intervention	Support residents in their growth and facilitate their self-determination

RCT = randomized controlled trials, ADL = activities of daily living.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are several simple screening tools available to recognize the frailty status. It is important to quickly apply simple frailty screening tools in consideration of the infra-structure, resources, and populations that are available. Well-validated simple screening tools include the Clinical Frailty Scale,76 the FRAIL scale,77 or the K-FRAIL scale.78 If infrastructure is limited, it is useful to screen the frailty status by simply measuring the usual gait speed.79 80 There are also brief frailty screening tools validated in special settings such as in the emergency department (ED).81 Therefore it is encouraged for the development of frailty assessments to be carried out in ED settings.

For vulnerable older adults, routine frailty screening is important especially in clinical settings. In line with this, the consensus group, consisting of 6-major international, European, and US societies, recommended administering frailty screening in all older people aged 70 years or older.39

Based on the frailty assessment and CGA results, various co-care models should be activated for diseases with high-intensity treatments. In Korea, the most widely known ortho-geriatric co-care model for hip surgery has not been established yet. Tight inter-department collaborations can reduce the adverse outcomes due to frailty. It is also important to educate and nurture fellow clinicians who clearly understand the concept of frailty and geriatric syndromes.

Finally, various intervention models that target frailty in various settings need to be developed. It is important to develop effective interventions especially both in hospitals and areas of resource-limited community settings. However, these interventional effects should be sustainable and not limited to the intervention period. To evaluate the effectiveness of the models, understanding the responsiveness of frailty measures and clinical meaningful changes is necessary. In depth understanding will help choose adequate frailty measures to track longitudinal changes of frailty in clinical settings and research.

CONCLUSION

Frailty assessment and CGA is capable of effectively exploring multiple domains in older ages in various clinical and community settings. Rushing to implement CGA is not ideal, if it is a one-time event with limited follow-up. An important aim in CGA is to develop and implement individually tailored geriatric interventions that can lead to continuous care. Further work should aim to develop CGA-based interventions that focus on improving clinical outcomes of older adults.

Notes

^Disclosure The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

^{Author Contributions}

Conceptualization: Jang IY.
Data curation: Lee H, Jang IY.
Supervision: Lee E, Jang IY.
Writing - original draft: Lee H, Jang IY.
Writing - review & editing: Lee H, Jang IY.

References

1. Won CW. Frailty: its scope and implications for geriatricians. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2019; 23(3):95–97.

2. Pilotto A, Cella A, Pilotto A, Daragjati J, Veronese N, Musacchio C, et al. Three decades of comprehensive geriatric assessment: evidence coming from different healthcare settings and specific clinical conditions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017; 18(2):192.e1–192.e11.

3. Walston J, Buta B, Xue QL. Frailty screening and interventions: considerations for clinical practice. Clin Geriatr Med. 2018; 34(1):25–38.

4. Robinson TN, Walston JD, Brummel NE, Deiner S, Brown CH 4th, Kennedy M, et al. Frailty for surgeons: review of a National Institute on Aging conference on frailty for specialists. J Am Coll Surg. 2015; 221(6):1083–1092.

5. Bandeen-Roche K, Seplaki CL, Huang J, Buta B, Kalyani RR, Varadhan R, et al. Frailty in older adults: a nationally representative profile in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015; 70(11):1427–1434.

6. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001; 56(3):M146–56.

7. Walston J, Fried LP. Frailty and the older man. Med Clin North Am. 1999; 83(5):1173–1194.

8. Walston J, Bandeen-Roche K, Buta B, Bergman H, Gill TM, Morley JE, et al. Moving frailty toward clinical practice: NIA intramural frailty science symposium summary. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019; 67(8):1559–1564.

9. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A. Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 62(7):722–727.

10. Blodgett J, Theou O, Kirkland S, Andreou P, Rockwood K. Frailty in NHANES: Comparing the frailty index and phenotype. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015; 60(3):464–470.

11. Theou O, Brothers TD, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Operationalization of frailty using eight commonly used scales and comparison of their ability to predict all-cause mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013; 61(9):1537–1551.

12. Bandeen-Roche K, Xue QL, Ferrucci L, Walston J, Guralnik JM, Chaves P, et al. Phenotype of frailty: characterization in the women’s health and aging studies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006; 61(3):262–266.

13. Woods NF, LaCroix AZ, Gray SL, Aragaki A, Cochrane BB, Brunner RL, et al. Frailty: emergence and consequences in women aged 65 and older in the women's health initiative observational study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53(8):1321–1330.

14. Kim DH, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Lipsitz LA, Rockwood K, Avorn J. Measuring frailty in medicare data: development and validation of a claims-based frailty index. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018; 73(7):980–987.

15. Rubenstein LZ, Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland D. Impacts of geriatric evaluation and management programs on defined outcomes: overview of the evidence. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39(9 Pt 2):8S–16S.

16. Ouslander JG, Reyes B. Clinical problems associated with the aging process. In : Jameson JL, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Loscalzo J, editors. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 20th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education;2018.

17. Turner G, Clegg A. British Geriatrics Society. Age UK. Royal College of General Practioners. Best practice guidelines for the management of frailty: a British Geriatrics Society, Age UK and Royal College of General Practitioners report. Age Ageing. 2014; 43(6):744–747.

18. Jones DM, Song X, Rockwood K. Operationalizing a frailty index from a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52(11):1929–1933.

19. Jones D, Song X, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Evaluation of a frailty index based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment in a population based study of elderly Canadians. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005; 17(6):465–471.

20. Theou O, Rockwood K. Should frailty status always be considered when treating the elderly patient? Aging Health. 2012; 8(3):261–271.

21. Walston J, Robinson TN, Zieman S, McFarland F, Carpenter CR, Althoff KN, et al. Integrating frailty research into the medical specialties—report from a U13 conference. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017; 65(10):2134–2139.

22. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, Syin D, Bandeen-Roche K, Patel P, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210(6):901–908.

23. Krishnan M, Beck S, Havelock W, Eeles E, Hubbard RE, Johansen A. Predicting outcome after hip fracture: using a frailty index to integrate comprehensive geriatric assessment results. Age Ageing. 2014; 43(1):122–126.

24. Gleason LJ, Benton EA, Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Weaver MJ, Harris MB, Javedan H. FRAIL questionnaire screening tool and short-term outcomes in geriatric fracture patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017; 18(12):1082–1086.

25. Joseph B, Pandit V, Zangbar B, Kulvatunyou N, Tang A, O'Keeffe T, et al. Validating trauma-specific frailty index for geriatric trauma patients: a prospective analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014; 219(1):10–17.e1.

26. Orouji Jokar T, Ibraheem K, Rhee P, Kulavatunyou N, Haider A, Phelan HA, et al. Emergency general surgery specific frailty index: a validation study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016; 81(2):254–260.

27. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Law A, King E, Orandi B, Salter M, Gupta N, et al. Frailty and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2015; 15(1):149–154.

28. Derck JE, Thelen AE, Cron DC, Friedman JF, Gerebics AD, Englesbe MJ, et al. Quality of life in liver transplant candidates: frailty is a better indicator than severity of liver disease. Transplantation. 2015; 99(2):340–344.

29. Extermann M, Aapro M, Bernabei R, Cohen HJ, Droz JP, Lichtman S, et al. Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005; 55(3):241–252.

30. Forman DE, Rich MW, Alexander KP, Zieman S, Maurer MS, Najjar SS, et al. Cardiac care for older adults. Time for a new paradigm. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(18):1801–1810.

31. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, Makkar R, Kodali SK, Russo M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(18):1695–1705.

32. Kim DH, Afilalo J, Shi SM, Popma JJ, Khabbaz KR, Laham RJ, et al. Evaluation of changes in functional status in the year after aortic valve replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(3):383–391.

33. Legge A, Kirkland S, Rockwood K, Andreou P, Bae SC, Gordon C, et al. Evaluating the properties of a frailty index and its association with mortality risk among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71(8):1297–1307.

34. Clegg A, Bates C, Young J, Ryan R, Nichols L, Ann Teale E, et al. Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age Ageing. 2016; 45(3):353–360.

35. Boyd PJ, Nevard M, Ford JA, Khondoker M, Cross JL, Fox C. The electronic frailty index as an indicator of community healthcare service utilisation in the older population. Age Ageing. 2019; 48(2):273–277.

36. Reuben DB, Borok GM, Wolde-Tsadik G, Ershoff DH, Fishman LK, Ambrosini VL, et al. A randomized trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment in the care of hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332(20):1345–1350.

37. Kuo HK, Scandrett KG, Dave J, Mitchell SL. The influence of outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment on survival: a meta-analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2004; 39(3):245–254.

38. Arbaje AI, Maron DD, Yu Q, Wendel VI, Tanner E, Boult C, et al. The geriatric floating interdisciplinary transition team. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010; 58(2):364–370.

39. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, Anker SD, Bauer JM, Bernabei R, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013; 14(6):392–397.

40. Bibas L, Levi M, Bendayan M, Mullie L, Forman DE, Afilalo J. Therapeutic interventions for frail elderly patients: part I. Published randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2014; 57(2):134–143.

41. Tieland M, van de Rest O, Dirks ML, van der Zwaluw N, Mensink M, van Loon LJ, et al. Protein supplementation improves physical performance in frail elderly people: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012; 13(8):720–726.

42. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Orav EJ, Lips P, Meunier PJ, Lyons RA, et al. A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(1):40–49.

43. Rejnmark L, Avenell A, Masud T, Anderson F, Meyer HE, Sanders KM, et al. Vitamin D with calcium reduces mortality: patient level pooled analysis of 70,528 patients from eight major vitamin D trials. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012; 97(8):2670–2681.

44. Kojima G, Bell C, Tamura B, Inaba M, Lubimir K, Blanchette PL, et al. Reducing cost by reducing polypharmacy: the polypharmacy outcomes project. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012; 13(9):818.e11–818.e15.

45. Fitzgerald SP, Bean NG. An analysis of the interactions between individual comorbidities and their treatments--implications for guidelines and polypharmacy. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2010; 11(7):475–484.

46. Grigoryan KV, Javedan H, Rudolph JL. Orthogeriatric care models and outcomes in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2014; 28(3):e49–55.

47. Eamer G, Taheri A, Chen SS, Daviduck Q, Chambers T, Shi X, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 1:CD012485.

48. Caillet P, Laurent M, Bastuji-Garin S, Liuu E, Culine S, Lagrange JL, et al. Optimal management of elderly cancer patients: usefulness of the comprehensive geriatric assessment. Clin Interv Aging. 2014; 9:1645–1660.

49. Ellis G, Whitehead MA, Robinson D, O'Neill D, Langhorne P. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d6553.

50. Hempsall VJ, Robertson DR, Campbell MJ, Briggs RS. Orthopaedic geriatric care--is it effective? A prospective population-based comparison of outcome in fractured neck of femur. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1990; 24(1):47–50.

51. Vidán M, Serra JA, Moreno C, Riquelme G, Ortiz J. Efficacy of a comprehensive geriatric intervention in older patients hospitalized for hip fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53(9):1476–1482.

52. Stenvall M, Olofsson B, Nyberg L, Lundström M, Gustafson Y. Improved performance in activities of daily living and mobility after a multidisciplinary postoperative rehabilitation in older people with femoral neck fracture: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. J Rehabil Med. 2007; 39(3):232–238.

53. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, Resnick NM. Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001; 49(5):516–522.

54. Prestmo A, Hagen G, Sletvold O, Helbostad JL, Thingstad P, Taraldsen K, et al. Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9978):1623–1633.

55. Sletvold O, Helbostad JL, Thingstad P, Taraldsen K, Prestmo A, Lamb SE, et al. Effect of in-hospital comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older people with hip fracture. The protocol of the Trondheim Hip Fracture trial. BMC Geriatr. 2011; 11(1):18.

56. Jang IY, Lee YS, Jung HW, Chang JS, Kim JJ, Kim HJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of perioperative geriatric intervention in the elderly undergoing hip fracture surgery. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2016; 20(3):125–130.

57. McCorkle R, Strumpf NE, Nuamah IF, Adler DC, Cooley ME, Jepson C, et al. A specialized home care intervention improves survival among older post-surgical cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(12):1707–1713.

58. Rao AV, Hsieh F, Feussner JR, Cohen HJ. Geriatric evaluation and management units in the care of the frail elderly cancer patient. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005; 60(6):798–803.

59. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60(8):1487–1492.

60. Gill TM, Baker DI, Gottschalk M, Peduzzi PN, Allore H, Van Ness PH. A prehabilitation program for the prevention of functional decline: effect on higher-level physical function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85(7):1043–1049.

61. Pahor M, Blair SN, Espeland M, Fielding R, Gill TM, Guralnik JM, et al. Effects of a physical activity intervention on measures of physical performance: Results of the lifestyle interventions and independence for Elders Pilot (LIFE-P) study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006; 61(11):1157–1165.

62. Cameron ID, Fairhall N, Langron C, Lockwood K, Monaghan N, Aggar C, et al. A multifactorial interdisciplinary intervention reduces frailty in older people: randomized trial. BMC Med. 2013; 11(1):65.

63. Ng TP, Feng L, Nyunt MS, Feng L, Niti M, Tan BY, et al. Nutritional, physical, cognitive, and combination interventions and frailty reversal among older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2015; 128(11):1225–1236.e1.

64. Jang IY, Jung HW, Park H, Lee CK, Yu SS, Lee YS, et al. A multicomponent frailty intervention for socioeconomically vulnerable older adults: a designed-delay study. Clin Interv Aging. 2018; 13:1799–1814.

65. Kojima G. Prevalence of frailty in nursing homes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015; 16(11):940–945.

66. Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Annual Health Insurance Statistics for 2012. Updated 2013. Accessed June 2, 2019. https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020045010000&brdScnBltNo=4&brdBltNo=2267&pageIndex=1#none.

67. Laffon de Mazières C, Morley JE, Levy C, Agenes F, Barbagallo M, Cesari M, et al. Prevention of functional decline by reframing the role of nursing homes? J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017; 18(2):105–110.

68. Kaehr EW, Pape LC, Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. FRAIL-NH predicts outcomes in long term care. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016; 20(2):192–198.

69. Ga H, Won CW, Jung HW. Use of the frailty index and FRAIL-NH scale for the assessment of the frailty status of elderly individuals admitted in a long-term care hospital in Korea. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2018; 22(1):20–25.

70. Lee SJ, Kim MS, Jung YJ, Chang SO. The effectiveness of function-focused care interventions in nursing homes: a systematic review. J Nurs Res. 2019; 27(1):1–13.

71. Weber M, Belala N, Clemson L, Boulton E, Hawley-Hague H, Becker C, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of intervention programmes integrating functional exercise into daily life of older adults: a systematic review. Gerontology. 2018; 64(2):172–187.

72. Cameron ID, Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Murray GR, Hill KD, Cumming RG, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12:CD005465.

73. Chuang HW, Kao CW, Lee MD, Chang YC. Effectiveness of Story-Centred Care Intervention Program in older persons living in long-term care facilities: a randomized, longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(3):e0194178.

74. Schoberer D, Leino-Kilpi H, Breimaier HE, Halfens RJ, Lohrmann C. Educational interventions to empower nursing home residents: a systematic literature review. Clin Interv Aging. 2016; 11:1351–1363.

75. Hernández Morante JJ, Gómez Martínez C, Morillas-Ruiz JM. Dietary factors associated with frailty in old adults: a review of nutritional interventions to prevent frailty development. Nutrients. 2019; 11(1):102.

76. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005; 173(5):489–495.

77. Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging. 2012; 16(7):601–608.

78. Jung HW, Yoo HJ, Park SY, Kim SW, Choi JY, Yoon SJ, et al. The Korean version of the FRAIL scale: clinical feasibility and validity of assessing the frailty status of Korean elderly. Korean J Intern Med. 2016; 31(3):594–600.

79. Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, Rosano C, Faulkner K, Inzitari M, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA. 2011; 305(1):50–58.

80. Jung HW, Jang IY, Lee CK, Yu SS, Hwang JK, Jeon C, et al. Usual gait speed is associated with frailty status, institutionalization, and mortality in community-dwelling rural older adults: a longitudinal analysis of the Aging Study of Pyeongchang Rural Area. Clin Interv Aging. 2018; 13:1079–1089.

81. Brousseau AA, Dent E, Hubbard R, Melady D, Émond M, Mercier É, et al. Identification of older adults with frailty in the emergency department using a frailty index: results from a multinational study. Age Ageing. 2018; 47(2):242–248.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs

Heayon Lee
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7389-2343

Eunju Lee
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4612-0625

Il-Young Jang
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3617-3301

Similar articles