Cited by 25Frailty in Older AdultsGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

A comparison of 3 frailty measures and adverse outcomes in the intake home care population: a retrospective cohort study

Open access
Sinn, Chi-Ling Joanna, Heckman, George, Poss, Jeffrey W., Onder, Graziano, Vetrano, Davide Liborio, Hirdes, John·2020·CMAJ Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, nearly all home care patients are assessed with a brief clinical assessment (interRAI Contact Assessment [interRAI CA]) on admission. Our objective was to compare 3 frailty measures that can be operationalized using the interRAI CA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked patient-level assessment and administrative data for all Ontario adult (≥ 18 yr) home care patients assessed with the interRAI CA in 2014. We employed multivariable logistic models to compare the Changes in Health, End-stage disease and Signs and Symptoms Scale for the Contact Assessment (CHESS-CA), Assessment Urgency Algorithm (AUA) and the Frailty Index for the Contact Assessment (FI-CA) that was created for this study. Our outcomes of interest were death, hospital admission and emergency department visits within 90 days, and assessor-rated need for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). RESULTS: In 2014, there were 228 679 unique adult home care patients in Ontario assessed with the interRAI CA. Controlling for age, sex and health region, being in a higher frailty level defined by any measure increased the likelihood of experiencing adverse outcomes. Among all assessments, CHESS-CA was best suited for predicting death and hospital admission, and either AUA or FI-CA for predicting perceived need for CGA. Previous emergency department visits were more predictive of future visits than frailty. Model fit was independent of whether the assessment was completed over the phone or in person. INTERPRETATION: Frailty measures from the interRAI CA identified patients at higher risk for death, hospital admission and perceived need for CGA. In jurisdictions where the CHESS-CA and AUA are already built into the electronic home care platform, such as Ontario, patients identified as high risk should be prioritized for proactive referral and care planning, and may benefit from greater involvement of primary care and other health professionals in the circle of care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.9778/cmajo.20200083

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In many countries, patients receiving home care services typically live with comorbid conditions and have high functional and cognitive impairment rates.

    “In many countries worldwide, patients receiving home care services typically live with comorbid conditions, with high functional and cognitive impairment rates [30–32].”

    From The hospital-to-home care transition experience of home care clients: an exploratory study using patient journey mapping (2023) · cites this paper as [30]

    Table 2 (labelled Interpretation; page unavailable) reports substantial functional limitations and cognitive impairment among Ontario home-care patients, including 54.8% needing help bathing and 20.8% with impaired cognitive skills. Table 1 lists several disease diagnoses, but does not establish how often patients have comorbid conditions. The Study design and Results describe an Ontario cohort, not patients across many countries. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Ontario, Canada, 7.3% of patients died, 16.6% were hospitalized, and 44.4% visited the emergency department within 90 days of being admitted to home care.

    “Sinn and colleagues observed that in Ontario, Canada, 7.3% of patients died, 16.6% were hospitalized, and 44.4% visited the emergency department within 90 days of being admitted to home care [30].”

    From The hospital-to-home care transition experience of home care clients: an exploratory study using patient journey mapping (2023) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results report all three percentages for Ontario home care patients within 90 days of their assessment date. The claim instead starts the 90-day period at admission to home care; the Setting section says assessments can also include existing home care patients returning from hospital. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Caplan GA, Sulaiman NS, Mangin DA, et al. A meta-analysis of "hospital in the home." In: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-Assessed Reviews. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2012. Available: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK127330/ (accessed 2020 Apr. 13).
  2. Morris JN, Fries BE, Bernabei R, et al. interRAI Home Care (HC) assessment form and user's manual. Version 9.1, Canadian Edition. Washington (DC): interRAI; 2012.
  3. McMullan J, Sultan H, Haratsidis E, et al. Modernizing assessment for Ontario's home care patients using the interRAI home care. Canadian interRAI Confer- ence: Wellness for Life -A Priority for All; 2018 May 16; Toronto. Available: https://acutenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/C1.1-Assessment-Modernization_ interRAI-Conference-Final_McMullan.pdf (accessed 2020 June 16).
  4. Hirdes JP, Heckman G, Geffen L, Saari M, Hogeveen S, Northwood M. inter- RAI COVID-19 Vulnerability Screener (CVS) User Guide. Washington (DC): interRAI; in press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sinn, C.-L. J., Heckman, G., Poss, J. W., Onder, G., Vetrano, D. L., & Hirdes, J.
Affiliations
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
Venue
CMAJ Open
Published
2020-10
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
E796-E809
ISSN
2291-0026 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3109433748
Cited by
25
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CMAJ Open (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McMaster University
  • Government of Canada
  • University of Waterloo
  • Université de Montréal
  • Canadian Frailty Network
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
frailty assessment, home care, comprehensive geriatric assessment, hospitalization, emergency department visits, mortality, risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Home Care Services, Hospitalization, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Middle Aged, Ontario, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment, Prevalence, Survival Analysis, Frail Elderly, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Health Status Disparities, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review