5PSQ-012 Frailty index: a parameter to consider in pharmaceutical validation?

<h3>Background and Importance</h3> Evaluate the role of the Frailty Index (FI) in pharmaceutical validation, improving care for frail elderly patients. <h3>Aim and Objectives</h3> The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the FI in pharmaceutical validation within Comprehensive Care Plans (CCP) at a Social-Health Centre (SHC). <h3>Material and Methods</h3> Retrospective observational descriptive study was conducted from January to December 2023 at a SHC where FI-SHC was calculated for all elderly residents enrolled in the CCP during this period, categorising frailty into non-frail (&lt;0.2), mild (0.2–0.35), moderate (0.36–0.55) and advanced (&gt;0.55). The elderly residents with an FI-SHC &gt; 0.35 were selected for analysis of pharmaceutical interventions related to frailty. Patient follow-up was conducted by reviewing clinical histories using Resiplus and intervention records through the electronic application Farmatools. The variables that were collected were demographic (age and sex) and clinical (frailty index). Regarding the interventions, these were classified by clinical relevance into Level I (no significant health changes), Level II (avoids likely patient harm) and Level III (avoids risks of hospitalisation and/or life-threatening situations). The utility of the FI-SHC was assessed by comparing the number of interventions related and unrelated to frailty, as well as their acceptance and clinical relevance. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 83 elderly residents included in the CCP, 34 (41%) had a FI &gt;0.35, with 23 classified as moderate (0.36–0.55) and 11 as advanced (&gt;0.55). The cohort consisted of 27 women and 7 men, with a median age of 89 years (65–101). A total of 111 interventions were performed by the pharmacist, of which 37 (33%) were related to the FI. Among these, 26 (70%) were accepted and 11 (30%) were not. None of the interventions were classified as Level I, while 20 (54%) were Level II and 17 (46%) were Level III. <h3>Conclusion and Relevance</h3> The prevalence of moderate and advanced frailty among elderly residents at the SHC is significant. One in three pharmaceutical interventions was related to the FI, with most having a high clinical impact and strong acceptance from physicians. These findings underscore the importance of the FI in pharmaceutical validation in this setting, suggesting its calculation should be considered essential for all elderly residents whenever feasible. <h3>References and/or Acknowledgements</h3> <h3>Conflict of Interest</h3> No conflict of interest

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2025-eahp.311
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

5PSQ-012 Frailty index: a parameter to consider in pharmaceutical validation?

S Bodas, M Guerro
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

5PSQ-012 Frailty index: a parameter to consider in pharmaceutical validation?

S Bodas, M Guerro
article en

Abstract

<h3>Background and Importance</h3> Evaluate the role of the Frailty Index (FI) in pharmaceutical validation, improving care for frail elderly patients. <h3>Aim and Objectives</h3> The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the FI in pharmaceutical validation within Comprehensive Care Plans (CCP) at a Social-Health Centre (SHC). <h3>Material and Methods</h3> Retrospective observational descriptive study was conducted from January to December 2023 at a SHC where FI-SHC was calculated for all elderly residents enrolled in the CCP during this period, categorising frailty into non-frail (&lt;0.2), mild (0.2–0.35), moderate (0.36–0.55) and advanced (&gt;0.55). The elderly residents with an FI-SHC &gt; 0.35 were selected for analysis of pharmaceutical interventions related to frailty. Patient follow-up was conducted by reviewing clinical histories using Resiplus and intervention records through the electronic application Farmatools. The variables that were collected were demographic (age and sex) and clinical (frailty index). Regarding the interventions, these were classified by clinical relevance into Level I (no significant health changes), Level II (avoids likely patient harm) and Level III (avoids risks of hospitalisation and/or life-threatening situations). The utility of the FI-SHC was assessed by comparing the number of interventions related and unrelated to frailty, as well as their acceptance and clinical relevance. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 83 elderly residents included in the CCP, 34 (41%) had a FI &gt;0.35, with 23 classified as moderate (0.36–0.55) and 11 as advanced (&gt;0.55). The cohort consisted of 27 women and 7 men, with a median age of 89 years (65–101). A total of 111 interventions were performed by the pharmacist, of which 37 (33%) were related to the FI. Among these, 26 (70%) were accepted and 11 (30%) were not. None of the interventions were classified as Level I, while 20 (54%) were Level II and 17 (46%) were Level III. <h3>Conclusion and Relevance</h3> The prevalence of moderate and advanced frailty among elderly residents at the SHC is significant. One in three pharmaceutical interventions was related to the FI, with most having a high clinical impact and strong acceptance from physicians. These findings underscore the importance of the FI in pharmaceutical validation in this setting, suggesting its calculation should be considered essential for all elderly residents whenever feasible. <h3>References and/or Acknowledgements</h3> <h3>Conflict of Interest</h3> No conflict of interest

Universidad de Valladolid (ES), Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.