Background the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was originally developed to summarise a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and yield a care plan. Especially since COVID-19, the CFS is being used widely by health care professionals without training in frailty care as a resource allocation tool and for care rationing. CFS scoring by inexperienced raters might not always reflect expert judgement. For these raters, we developed a new classification tree to assist with routine CFS scoring. Here, we test that tree against clinical scoring. Objective/Methods we examined agreement between the CFS classification tree and CFS scoring by novice raters (clerks/residents), and the CFS classification tree and CFS scoring by experienced raters (geriatricians) in 115 older adults (mean age 78.0 ± 7.3; 47% females) from a single centre. Results the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the CFS classification tree was 0.833 (95% CI: 0.768–0.882) when compared with the geriatricians’ CFS scoring. In 93%, the classification tree rating was the same or differed by at most one level with the expert geriatrician ratings. The ICC was 0.805 (0.685–0.883) when CFS scores from the classification tree were compared with the clerk/resident scores; 88.5% of the ratings were the same or ±1 level. Conclusions a classification tree for scoring the CFS can help with reliable scoring by relatively inexperienced raters. Though an incomplete remedy, a classification tree is a useful support to decision-making and could be used to aid routine scoring of the CFS.

中文翻译：

---

帮助临床虚弱量表常规评分的分类树

背景 临床衰弱量表 (CFS) 最初是为了总结老年综合评估和制定护理计划而开发的。特别是自 COVID-19 以来，CFS 被医疗保健专业人员广泛使用，而没有接受过作为资源分配工具和护理配给的虚弱护理方面的培训。经验不足的评估者对 CFS 的评分可能并不总是反映专家的判断。对于这些评估者，我们开发了一个新的分类树来帮助进行常规 CFS 评分。在这里，我们根据临床评分测试该树。目标/方法 我们检查了 CFS 分类树和新手评估者（文员/居民）的 CFS 评分之间的一致性，以及 115 名老年人（平均年龄 78.0 ± 7.3；47%）的 CFS 分类树和经验丰富的评估者（老年科医生）的 CFS 评分女性）来自一个中心。结果与老年科医生的 CFS 评分相比，CFS 分类树的组内相关系数 (ICC) 为 0.833 (95% CI: 0.768–0.882)。93% 的分类树评级与老年医学专家评级相同或最多相差一个级别。将分类树的 CFS 分数与职员/居民分数进行比较时，ICC 为 0.805 (0.685–0.883)；88.5% 的评级为相同或±1 级。结论 用于对 CFS 进行评分的分类树有助于相对缺乏经验的评分者进行可靠评分。虽然是一种不完整的补救措施，但分类树是对决策制定的有用支持，可用于帮助 CFS 的常规评分。882）与老年科医生的 CFS 评分相比。93% 的分类树评级与老年医学专家评级相同或最多相差一个级别。将分类树的 CFS 分数与职员/居民分数进行比较时，ICC 为 0.805 (0.685–0.883)；88.5% 的评级为相同或±1 级。结论 用于对 CFS 进行评分的分类树有助于相对缺乏经验的评分者进行可靠评分。虽然是一种不完整的补救措施，但分类树是对决策制定的有用支持，可用于帮助 CFS 的常规评分。882）与老年科医生的 CFS 评分相比。93% 的分类树评级与老年医学专家评级相同或最多相差一个级别。将分类树的 CFS 分数与职员/居民分数进行比较时，ICC 为 0.805 (0.685–0.883)；88.5% 的评级为相同或±1 级。结论 用于对 CFS 进行评分的分类树有助于相对缺乏经验的评分者进行可靠评分。虽然是一种不完整的补救措施，但分类树是对决策制定的有用支持，可用于帮助 CFS 的常规评分。88.5% 的评级为相同或±1 级。结论 用于对 CFS 进行评分的分类树有助于相对缺乏经验的评分者进行可靠评分。虽然是一种不完整的补救措施，但分类树是对决策制定的有用支持，可用于帮助 CFS 的常规评分。88.5% 的评级为相同或±1 级。结论 用于对 CFS 进行评分的分类树有助于相对缺乏经验的评分者进行可靠评分。虽然是一种不完整的补救措施，但分类树是对决策制定的有用支持，可用于帮助 CFS 的常规评分。