SP- Planned and ongoing trials

Introduction: Frailty is common in hospitalised older adults. This study compared efficacy of a modified Hospital Frailty Risk Score (mHFRS) to standard HFRS and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to determine whether mHFRS can be used to identify frail hospitalised patients.

Methods: Anonymised retrospective review of Electronic Health Records was undertaken in patients =>65 years old attending the Emergency Department (ED) and admitted to hospital 1st July 2022 to 31st March 2023. mHFRS utilises 2 prior emergency admissions within 2 years to generate a frailty risk score, whereas HFRS requires an index admission plus 2 prior emergency admissions. Hospitalisation outcomes and predictive models were evaluated with correlation and measures of agreement between CFS and HFRS, CFS and mHFRS using Spearman’s rank correlation and Cohen’s kappa.

Results: Of 3042 patients, CFS categorised 1635 patients as non-frail (CFS 1-4) and 1407 as frail (CFS 5-9). Using mHFRS, only 1623 patients could be categorised and of these, 608 were deemed low, 657 intermediate and 358 high risk of frailty. Frail patients were older (81.8 years, SD 8.41 vs 75.3 years, SD 7.20, p=<.001), had significantly longer LOS (52.5% % vs 31.5%, p=<0.001), higher 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions (18.5% vs 9.9%, p=<0.001), and higher in-patient (6.1% vs 2.0%, p<0.001), 30-day (9.1% vs 2.3%, p<0.001), and 90-day (15.8% vs 5.1%, p<0.001) mortality. mHFRS achieved comparable association with hospitalisation outcomes compared to CFS & HFRS. Cohens’s kappa, showed fair agreement across HFRS and mHFRS, κ of 0.235 0.243 respectively. mHFRS was less sensitive at identifying frail patients but had better specificity to identify non frail patients.

Conclusion: mHFRS doesn’t require a clinical assessment and is a standardised, easy to use frailty screening tool in those who can be scored.

Introduction

The PROMOTe trial was conducted entirely remotely, which aimed to enable a wider recruitment of participants, minimise risk of Covid-19 exposure and adhere to former travel restrictions. Participant experiences with remote clinical trials are not well understood. This work aimed to characterise participant perspectives on the remote delivery of the PROMOTe trial.

Methods

The trial involved remote measurement of short physical performance battery and grip strength, and remote collection of stool, urine, saliva, and capillary blood. Equipment including a dynamometer was posted to participants. Participants returned biological samples by post. A mixed methods approach was used, whereby participants were invited to complete an online questionnaire consisting of Likert, multiple-choice and open-ended questions upon trial completion.

Results

Of 72 trial participants, mean age 73.1, 80.6% (n = 58) completed the questionnaire. 53.5% (n = 31) had no preference between remote or in-person participation. Of those who preferred to take part remotely, 57.1% (n = 4) stated this was because there was no need to travel. 57.1% (n = 12) of those who preferred to take part in-person stated this was because they preferred to talk to the staff and ask questions face-to-face. Participants found that taking 5 out of the 8 physical measures were of similar difficulty over video teleconferencing compared to in-person. 100% (n = 58) of participants found it “easy” or “average” to collect stool, urine, and saliva, while 63.2% (n = 36) of participants thought it was “easy” or “average” to collect capillary blood. All participants found packaging and returning all four sample types of “easy” or “average” difficulty.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that the majority of participants found remote trial delivery, including handling equipment and collecting biological samples, both acceptable and manageable. Remote trial delivery has potential for increasing access of older people to trial participation.