Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Defining ICD-10 surrogate variables to estimate the modified frailty index: a Delphi-based approach.||Austin Authors:||Subramaniam, Ashwin;Ueno, Ryo;Tiruvoipati, Ravindranath;Darvall, Jai;Srikanth, Velandai;Bailey, Michael;Pilcher, David;Bellomo, Rinaldo||Affiliation:||Intensive Care..
Department of Critical Care, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..
Department of Geriatric Medicine, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia..
National Centre for Healthy Ageing, Melbourne, Australia..
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..
Department of Intensive Care, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..
Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..
Department of Intensive Care, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia..
Department of Intensive Care, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia..
Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia..
Department of Intensive Care, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..
|Issue Date:||13-May-2022||Date:||2022||Publication information:||BMC geriatrics 2022; 22(1): 422||Abstract:||There are currently no validated globally and freely available tools to estimate the modified frailty index (mFI). The widely available and non-proprietary International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding could be used as a surrogate for the mFI. We aimed to establish an appropriate set of the ICD-10 codes for comorbidities to be used to estimate the eleven-variable mFI. A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of intensivists and geriatricians using iterative rounds of an online survey, was conducted between March and July 2021. The consensus was set a priori at 75% overall agreement. Additionally, we assessed if survey responses differed between intensivists and geriatricians. Finally, we ascertained the level of agreement. A total of 21 clinicians participated in all 3 Delphi surveys. Most (86%, 18/21) had more than 5-years' experience as specialists. The agreement proportionately increased with every Delphi survey. After the third survey, the panel had reached 75% consensus in 87.5% (112/128) of ICD-10 codes. The initially included 128 ICD-10 variables were narrowed down to 54 at the end of the 3 surveys. The inter-rater agreements between intensivists and geriatricians were moderate for surveys 1 and 3 (κ = 0.728, κ = 0.780) respectively, and strong for survey 2 (κ = 0.811). This quantitative Delphi survey of a panel of experienced intensivists and geriatricians achieved consensus for appropriate ICD-10 codes to estimate the mFI. Future studies should focus on validating the mFI estimated from these ICD-10 codes. Not applicable.||URI:||https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30207||DOI:||10.1186/s12877-022-03063-x||ORCID:||0000-0002-8292-7357
|Journal:||BMC geriatrics||PubMed URL:||35562684||PubMed URL:||https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35562684/||Type:||Journal Article||Subjects:||ICD-10 codes
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems Tenth Revision
modified frailty index
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Show full item record
checked on Dec 3, 2023
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.