Agreement Between Provider-Completed and Patient-Completed Preoperative Frailty Screening Using the Clinical Risk Analysis Index: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative screening and management of persons with frailty improves postoperative outcomes. The Clinical Risk Analysis Index (RAI-C) is a validated provider-based screening tool for assessing frailty in presurgical populations. Patient self-screening for frailty may provide an alternative to provider-based screening if resources are limited; however, the agreement between these 2 methods has not been previously explored. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to examine provider-completed versus patient-completed RAI-C assessments to identify areas of disagreement between the 2 methods and inform best practices for RAI-C screening implementation. METHODS: Orthopedic physicians and physician assistants completed the RAI-C assessment on veterans aged 65 years and older undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty (eg, total hip or knee arthroplasty) and documented scores into the electronic health record during their preoperative clinic evaluation. Participants were then mailed the same RAI-C form after preoperative evaluation and returned responses to study coordinators. Agreement between provider-completed and patient-completed RAI-C assessments and differences within individual domains were compared. RESULTS: A total of 49 participants aged 65 years and older presenting for total joint arthroplasty underwent RAI-C assessment between November 2022 and August 2023. In total, 41% (20/49) of participants completed and returned an independent postvisit RAI-C assessment before surgery and within 180 days of their initial evaluation. There was a moderate but statistically significant correlation between provider-completed and patient-completed RAI-C assessments (r=0.62; 95% CI 0.25-0.83; P=.003). Provider-completed and patient-completed RAI-C assessments resulted in the same frailty classification in 60% (12/20) of participants, but 40% (8/20) of participants were reclassified to a more frail category based on patient-completed assessment. Agreement was the lowest between provider-completed and patient-completed screening questions regarding memory and activities of daily living. CONCLUSIONS: RAI-C had moderate agreement when completed by providers versus the participants themselves, with more than a third of patient-completed screens resulting in a higher frailty classification. Future studies will need to explore the differences between and accuracy of RAI-C screening approaches to inform best practices for preoperative RAI-C assessment implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».