Do frailty and comorbidity indices improve risk prediction of 28-day ED reattendance? Reanalysis of an ED discharge nomogram for older people

Abstract

Background

In older people, quantification of risk of reattendance after emergency department (ED) discharge is important to provide adequate post ED discharge care in the community to appropriately targeted patients at risk.

Methods

We reanalysed data from a prospective observational study, previously used for derivation of a nomogram for stratifying people aged 65 and older at risk for ED reattendance. We investigated the potential effect of comorbidity load and frailty by adding the Charlson or Elixhauser comorbidity index and a ten-item frailty measure from our data to develop four new nomograms. Model I and model F built on the original nomogram by including the frailty measure with and without the addition of the Charlson comorbidity score; model E adapted for efficiency in the time-constrained environment of ED was without the frailty measure; and model P manually constructed in a purposeful stepwise manner and including only statistically significant variables. Areas under the ROC curve of models were compared. The primary outcome was any ED reattendance within 28 days of discharge.

Results

Data from 1357 patients were used. The point estimate of the respective areas under ROC were 0.63 (O), 0.63 (I), 0.68 (E), 0.71 (P) and 0.63 (F).

Conclusion

Addition of a comorbidity index to our previous model improves stratifying elderly at risk of ED reattendance. Our frailty measure did not demonstrate any additional predictive benefit.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Yao JL, Fang J, Lou QQ et al (2015) A systematic review of the identification of seniors at risk (ISAR) tool for the prediction of adverse outcome in elderly patients seen in the emergency department. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015:4778–4786

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cousins G, Bennett Z, Dillon G et al (2013) Adverse outcomes in older adults attending emergency department: systematic review and meta-analysis of the Triage Risk Stratification Tool. Eur J Emerg Med 2013:230–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Carpenter CR, Shelton E, Fowler S et al (2015) Risk factors and screening instruments to predict adverse outcomes for undifferentiated older emergency department patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2015:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Arendts G, Fitzhardinge S, Pronk K et al (2013) Derivation of a nomogram to estimate probability of revisit in at-risk older adults discharged from the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med 8:249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Arendts G, Etherton-Beer C, Jones R et al (2015) Use of a risk nomogram to predict emergency department reattendance in older people after discharge: a validation study. Intern Emerg Med 10:481–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Holman CDAJ, Bass AJ, Rosman DL et al (2008) A decade of data linkage in Western Australia: strategic design, applications and benefits of the WA data linkage system. Aust Health Rev 32:766–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987:373–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR et al (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998:8–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Royston P, Parmar MKB (2002) Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med 21:2175–2197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Arendts G, Bullow K, Etherton-Beer C et al (2016) A randomized-controlled trial of a patient-centred intervention in high-risk discharged older patients. Eur J Emerg Med 25:237–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Xu KT, Nelson BK, Berk S (2009) The changing profile of patients who used emergency department services in the United States: 1996 to 2005. Ann Emerg Med 54:805–810.e1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Arendts G, Burkett E, Hullick C et al (2017) Frailty, thy name is. Emerg Med Australas 29:712–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Chainani V, Shaharyar S, Dave K et al (2016) Objective measures of the frailty syndrome (hand grip strength and gait speed) and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review. Int J Cardiol 215:487–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Calvani R, Marini F, Cesari M et al (2015) Biomarkers for physical frailty and sarcopenia: state of the science and future developments. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 6:278–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Carpenter CR, Shelton E, Fowler S et al (2015) Risk factors and screening instruments to predict adverse outcomes for undifferentiated older emergency department patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 22:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Grant from the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, WA Health.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn Arendts.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gips, E., Spilsbury, K., Boecker, C. et al. Do frailty and comorbidity indices improve risk prediction of 28-day ED reattendance? Reanalysis of an ED discharge nomogram for older people. Aging Clin Exp Res 31, 1401–1406 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-1089-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Risk assessment
  • Frail elderly
  • Comorbidity
  • Emergency department