Abstract

Background: Frailty can have a negative influence on outcomes in elderly patients after burn injuries. The Dutch hospitals have used a four-domain frailty screening instrument from the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) since 2012. However, its feasibility and validity have hardly been studied. We aim to assess the feasibility and validity of frailty screening in specialized burn care. Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted in all Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 70, with a primary admission between 2012-2018, were included. Data were derived from electronic patient files. Results: In total, 515 patients were included. Frailty screening was complete in 39.6% and partially complete in 23.9%. Determinants for a complete screening were admission after 2015 (OR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.42-3.25) and lower percentage TBSA burned (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-029). In all completely screened patients, 49.9% were at risk of frailty. At risk patients were older, had more comorbidities (known group validity), a longer length of stay, and more frequently a non-home discharge (predictive validity). Conclusion: Frailty screening in specialized burn care is feasible and was conducted in 63.5% of admitted patients. In total, 44% of screened patients were at risk of frailty. Validity of frailty screening was confirmed. Frailty screening can contribute to optimal specialized burn care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)87-100
Number of pages14
JournalEuropean Burn Journal
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Feb 2023

Keywords

  • Dutch Safety Mangement Program
  • burn care
  • elderly
  • feasibility
  • frailty screening
  • validity

Research Focus Areas Hanze University of Applied Sciences * (mandatory by Hanze)

  • Healthy Ageing

Research Focus Areas Research Centre or Centre of Expertise * (mandatory by Hanze)

  • Frailty and adequate care

Publinova themes

  • Other

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Frailty Screening Practice in Specialized Burn Care: A Retrospective Multicentre Cohort Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this