Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO’Caoimh, Rónán
dc.contributor.authorGao, Yang
dc.contributor.authorSvendrovski, Anton
dc.contributor.authorHealy, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorO’Connell, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorO’Keeffe, Gabrielle
dc.contributor.authorCronin, Una
dc.contributor.authorIgras, Estera
dc.contributor.authorO’Herlihy, Eileen
dc.contributor.authorFitzgerald, Carol
dc.contributor.authorWeathers, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorLeahy-Warren, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorCornally, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorMolloy, D. W
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-30T10:49:00Z
dc.date.available2016-09-30T10:49:00Z
dc.date.issued2015-07-30
dc.identifier.citationBMC Geriatrics. 2015 Jul 30;15(1):92en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0095-z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/620765
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Predicting risk of adverse healthcare outcomes, among community dwelling older adults, is difficult. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a short (2–5 min), global subjective assessment of risk created to identify patients’ 1-year risk of three outcomes:institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death. Methods We compared the accuracy and predictive ability of the RISC, scored by Public Health Nurses (PHN), to the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in a prospective cohort study of community dwelling older adults (n = 803), in two Irish PHN sectors. The area under the curve (AUC), from receiver operating characteristic curves and binary logistic regression models, with odds ratios (OR), compared the discriminatory characteristics of the RISC and CFS. Results Follow-up data were available for 801 patients. The 1-year incidence of institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death were 10.2, 17.7 and 15.6 % respectively. Patients scored maximum-risk (RISC score 3,4 or 5/5) at baseline had a significantly greater rate of institutionalisation (31.3 and 7.1 %, p < 0.001), hospitalisation (25.4 and 13.2 %, p < 0.001) and death (33.5 and 10.8 %, p < 0.001), than those scored minimum-risk (score 1 or 2/5). The RISC had comparable accuracy for 1-year risk of institutionalisation (AUC of 0.70 versus 0.63), hospitalisation (AUC 0.61 versus 0.55), and death (AUC 0.70 versus 0.67), to the CFS. The RISC significantly added to the predictive accuracy of the regression model for institutionalisation (OR 1.43, p = 0.01), hospitalisation (OR 1.28, p = 0.01), and death (OR 1.58, p = 0.001). Conclusion Follow-up outcomes matched well with baseline risk. The RISC, a short global subjective assessment, demonstrated satisfactory validity compared with the CFS.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectCOMMUNITY HEALTHen
dc.subjectSCREENINGen
dc.titleThe Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC): a new instrument for predicting risk of adverse outcomes in community dwelling older adultsen
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderO'Caoimh et al.
dc.date.updated2016-09-27T16:03:07Z
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-27T16:56:15Z
html.description.abstractAbstract Background Predicting risk of adverse healthcare outcomes, among community dwelling older adults, is difficult. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a short (2–5 min), global subjective assessment of risk created to identify patients’ 1-year risk of three outcomes:institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death. Methods We compared the accuracy and predictive ability of the RISC, scored by Public Health Nurses (PHN), to the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in a prospective cohort study of community dwelling older adults (n = 803), in two Irish PHN sectors. The area under the curve (AUC), from receiver operating characteristic curves and binary logistic regression models, with odds ratios (OR), compared the discriminatory characteristics of the RISC and CFS. Results Follow-up data were available for 801 patients. The 1-year incidence of institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death were 10.2, 17.7 and 15.6 % respectively. Patients scored maximum-risk (RISC score 3,4 or 5/5) at baseline had a significantly greater rate of institutionalisation (31.3 and 7.1 %, p < 0.001), hospitalisation (25.4 and 13.2 %, p < 0.001) and death (33.5 and 10.8 %, p < 0.001), than those scored minimum-risk (score 1 or 2/5). The RISC had comparable accuracy for 1-year risk of institutionalisation (AUC of 0.70 versus 0.63), hospitalisation (AUC 0.61 versus 0.55), and death (AUC 0.70 versus 0.67), to the CFS. The RISC significantly added to the predictive accuracy of the regression model for institutionalisation (OR 1.43, p = 0.01), hospitalisation (OR 1.28, p = 0.01), and death (OR 1.58, p = 0.001). Conclusion Follow-up outcomes matched well with baseline risk. The RISC, a short global subjective assessment, demonstrated satisfactory validity compared with the CFS.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
12877_2015_Article_95.pdf
Size:
588.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record