Clinical frailty scale: Inter‐rater reliability of retrospective scoring in emergency abdominal surgery

Background Frailty is a complex syndrome shown to be an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality after surgery in older patients. Frailty scoring may, therefore, be important, for example, for pre‐operative risk assessment and prognosis estimation. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has been d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Vol. 66; no. 1; pp. 25 - 29
Main Authors Fornæss, Katarina M., Nome, Pia L., Aakre, Elin Kismul, Hegvik, Tor‐Arne, Jammer, Ib
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.01.2022
Subjects
Abdomen
Abdominal surgery
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Chronic fatigue syndrome
clinical frailty scale
Emergencies
Frailty
Frailty - diagnosis
Health care
Humans
interrater reliability
Morbidity
octogenarian
Patients
perioperative medicine
Reliability analysis
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Surgery
clinical frailty scale
interrater reliability
frailty
perioperative medicine
octogenarian
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Background Frailty is a complex syndrome shown to be an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality after surgery in older patients. Frailty scoring may, therefore, be important, for example, for pre‐operative risk assessment and prognosis estimation. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has been developed to help operationalize frailty in the individual patient. However, the inter‐rater reliability of retrospective CFS scoring through patient records by health care personnel is currently unknown in patients over 80 years of age undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Methods Retrospective review of electronic patient journal of 112 patients over 80 years of age undergoing emergency abdominal surgery between 2015 and 2016. Three researchers individually assigned each patient a CFS score. The inter‐rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa for the comparison of pairs of assessors, as well as Kendall's coefficient of concordance for the comparison of all three raters simultaneously. Results The agreement across raters was strong, with Cohen's kappa values ranging between 0.74 and 0.85 and a Kendall's coefficient of concordance of 0.86. Conclusions The inter‐rater reliability of assigned CFS from patient journals seems acceptable. This could permit retrospective research utilizing CFS measures from several raters and across centers.
Bibliography:Funding information
This work has been accomplished through institutional/departmental sources.
Katarina M. Fornæss and Pia Louise Nome these authors contributed equally to this work.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0001-5172
1399-6576
DOI:10.1111/aas.13974