• Libraries
    • Log in to:
    View Item 
    •   MSpace Home
    • University of Manitoba Researchers
    • University of Manitoba Scholarship
    • View Item
    •   MSpace Home
    • University of Manitoba Researchers
    • University of Manitoba Scholarship
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of common frailty screening instruments within general practice settings: a mixed methods study

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    12875_2022_Article_1778.pdf (985.4Kb)
    Date
    2022-06-27
    Author
    Ambagtsheer, Rachel C.
    Casey, Mavourneen G.
    Lawless, Michael
    Archibald, Mandy M.
    Yu, Solomon
    Kitson, Alison
    Beilby, Justin J.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Abstract Background Frailty is a highly prevalent clinical syndrome increasing older people’s vulnerability to risk of adverse outcomes. Better frailty identification through expanded screening implementation has been advocated within general practice settings, both internationally and within Australia. However, little is known about practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of specific instruments, and the underlying motivations behind those perceptions. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of a convenience and volunteer sample of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) towards common frailty screening instruments. Methods The feasibility of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7 [P7], Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) to 43 Australian GPs and PNs was assessed. The study adopted a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design incorporating quantitative (ranking exercise) and qualitative (content analysis) data collection integrated during the analysis phase. Results Practitioners assessed multi-dimensional instruments (EFS, GFI, KC) as having relatively higher clinical utility, better integration into existing assessment processes and stronger links to intervention over uni-dimensional (GST, TUG) and simple (FQ, P7) instruments. Conclusions While existing frailty screening instruments show promise as an initial step in supporting better care for older people, all the included instruments were associated with perceived advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, clinicians will need to weigh several factors in their selection of the optimal screening instrument. Further translational research, with a focus on contextual fit, is needed to support clinical decision-making on the selection of instruments for frailty screening.
    URI
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01778-9
    http://hdl.handle.net/1993/36583
    Collections
    • Rady Faculty of Health Sciences Scholarly Works [1296]
    • University of Manitoba Scholarship [1978]

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of MSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV