50 A COMPARISON OF FRAILTY SCREENING TOOLS WITHIN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

Abstract Background Increased awareness has been given to the value of identifying frail for risk stratification and assist in providing frailty attuned care rather than disease specific input. This increased both nationally internationally led many ED’s introducing Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) triage however as a service we wanted evaluate which tool would best meet our needs screen appropriate patients highlight current level within Emergency Department. Methods Over 3 day period all over 75 who present during core hours were screened by senior FITT member using number tools (CFS, THINK frail, InterRai, PRIMSA 7 & compared against own clinical reasoning if assessment was indicated). Results Total Patient’s screener FITT—48. Average age: 82. Sex: 51.62% male. Discharges: 57% d/c’d. CFS (Screener) = 5. (FITT) 28/48 same 58.33%. 15/48 differ 1 point 31.25%. Frail (Screener): 3. (FITT): 2. 17/47 =36%. 21/47 44%. 80.85% or difference. Conclusion The score provided most consistent when comparing scores multiple disciplines/grades. Although majority older adults scored 1–3 deemed non at unlikely benefit from CGA, those presented with new fall often did require research us move away FRAIL CFS, whilst continuing assess any falls irrespective score.