Frailty: perceptions of occupational therapists in Ireland

Niamh Griffin (Department of Occupational Therapy, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland)
Leah O’Sullivan (Department of Occupational Therapy, University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, Ireland)
Ruth Usher (Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland)

Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy

ISSN: 2398-8819

Article publication date: 3 April 2024

140

Abstract

Purpose

Ireland’s ageing population has resulted in an increasing number of older adults living with frailty. Despite growing attention towards older adults’ and health professionals’ perspectives of frailty, occupational therapy research is limited. This study aims to explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty and how their perceptions impact their approach to the assessment and management of frailty.

Design/methodology/approach

Using qualitative descriptive design, 19 occupational therapists working with older adults participated in online focus groups. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Findings

Perceptions of occupational therapists were constructed into three main themes: conceptualising frailty; management of frailty; and advancing frailty practice. Findings indicate that occupational therapists perceived frailty as a multidimensional concept but highlight a reluctance to use frailty terminology with patients. Findings also suggest that although occupational therapists are involved in provision of care for older adults living with frailty, the profession’s scope is not optimised in the assessment and management of frailty.

Originality/value

Findings provide insight into occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty. Development of a shared understanding of frailty between clinicians and patients and enhancement of undergraduate frailty education are recommended to progress occupational therapy’s role in frailty management.

Keywords

Citation

Griffin, N., O’Sullivan, L. and Usher, R. (2024), "Frailty: perceptions of occupational therapists in Ireland", Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOT-08-2023-0018

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Niamh Griffin, Leah O’Sullivan and Ruth Usher.

License

Published in Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


Introduction

Global ageing population trends have led to growing interest in conceptualising and addressing frailty among older adults (Durepos et al., 2022). Frailty is defined as a clinically identifiable state of heightened vulnerability, caused by a decrease in the reserve capacity of multiple physiological systems (Clegg et al., 2013). Frailty is a common and clinically significant condition among older adults and is associated with premature disability, institutionalisation and mortality (Roe et al., 2017). A recent systematic review of pooled estimates reported the prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty among hospital inpatients aged ≥ 65 years as 47.4% (95% CI 43.7–51.1%) and 25.8% (95%CI 22.0–29.6%), respectively (Doody et al., 2022). Increasingly, it is recognised that frailty is not an inevitable consequence of ageing and with appropriate strategies, it can be avoided, attenuated and even reversed. Thus, the ability of health-care professionals (HCPs) to comprehend, recognise and manage frailty is a pertinent issue.

The optimal and consistent assessment and treatment of older adults living with frailty requires shared understanding of frailty among HCPs (Gwyther et al., 2018). In Ireland, “The National Frailty Education Programme” (NFEP) was established to upskill HCPs and promote effective frailty management (Lang et al., 2023) and Frailty Intervention Therapy (FIT) teams have been established within a number of emergency departments (Maloney et al., 2017). Occupational therapists have skills for screening at-risk individuals and intervening to enhance current reserves, as well as addressing deficits that contribute to frailty development (Provencher et al., 2012). Therefore, it is imperative that occupational therapists commit to developing an understanding of frailty, so their role in early detection, prevention and management can be established and optimised. This study aimed to explore occupational therapists’ perceptions and experiences of addressing frailty in Irish practice.

Defining frailty

In recent years, research focusing on frailty has increased considerably, with three broad models of frailty in use. The Frailty Phenotype model defines frailty as a phenotype, consisting of only physical components including sarcopenia, gait impairments or weight loss (Fried et al., 2001). The Cumulative Deficit model views frailty as an accumulation of deficits, including psychological factors (Rockwood et al., 2005). The Integral Conceptual model views frailty from a bio–psycho–social perspective and defines frailty as losses of physical, psychological or social functioning, leading to increased risk of adverse outcomes (Gobbens et al., 2010). Despite differences in defining frailty, there is general agreement that frailty is complex and a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach is recommended (Coker et al., 2019; Hurst et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the absence of a universal definition may impede the efficient identification of frailty and subsequent treatment (Roland, et al., 2014).

Treating frailty

Central to successful frailty intervention is the accurate and early screening of the condition. Conflicting theoretical perspectives on how frailty develops and presents have resulted in two distinct categories of frailty screens: frailty phenotype instruments (Fried et al., 2001) and frailty index instruments (Rockwood et al., 2005). According to Fried et al. (2001), losses in body weight, energy, physical activity, grip strength and walking speed should be measured using self-report and performance-based measures to diagnose the syndrome. Meanwhile, Rockwood et al. (2005) proposed frailty tools based on markers such as loss of independence, incontinence and cognitive decline. Because of frailty’s multiple complexities, a combination of assessments should be used (Walston et al., 2018) and a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment approach is recommended (Coker et al., 2019; Hurst et al., 2021). Although research is limited, occupational therapy interventions including rehabilitation, education, environmental modification and provision of adaptive equipment offer potential in reducing the disability process associated with frailty and improving functional ability, mobility, social participation and quality of life (De Coninck et al., 2017; De Vriendt et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2007; Fritz et al., 2019; Gustafsson et al., 2013; Provencher et al., 2012).

Perceptions of frailty

Central to effective multidisciplinary treatment is a common understanding of frailty. Beyond debating models for describing frailty, Nicholson et al. (2017) believes that a broader conversation is needed driven by the accumulating evidence that older adults, HCP, and policymakers dislike the term “frailty”. Warmoth et al. (2016) found that individuals who could be categorised as frail using objective criteria actively refused self-identification as frail. Richardson et al. (2011) assert that HCPs and researchers must be cognisant of the unintended negative repercussions of frailty constructs, as the term is frequently associated with age-related stereotypes and negative psychological and social emotions such as dependency and fear (Age UK, British Geriatrics Society, 2015; Nicholson et al., 2017; Schoenborn et al., 2018).

Disparities in perceptions of frailty have a subsequent impact on provision of care (Walston et al., 2018). Furthermore, although frailty has become a key concept in Irish health care, little is known about occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty. Thus, this study aimed to explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty and how this influences their approaches to the assessment and management of older adults living with in Ireland.

Methodology

A qualitative descriptive approach (Sandelowski, 2000) was chosen to explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty. Focus groups are effective in exploring opinions and experiences (Bryman, 2016) and were used to allow in-depth exploration of occupational therapist’s perceptions of frailty. Before commencement of this study, ethical approval was obtained from the university’s Social Research Ethics Committee (CT-SREC-2021-13). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidance (Tong et al., 2007) was used to guide reporting (Online Supplemental file).

Purposive sampling was used to recruit occupational therapists practising in Ireland and working with older adults. The Association of Occupational Therapists of Ireland distributed study information via email to its membership. Written informed consent was obtained from individuals before their participation on the study. Demographic information regarding each participant’s background and experience was gathered.

Four online focus groups were conducted between February and March 2022 by the first and second authors. The focus groups used open-ended questions to facilitate a natural exploration into the perceptions of occupational therapists on frailty. A topic guide informed by the literature was used to structure discussions, which enabled researchers to fully address the research questions and ensured comparability between focus groups whilst concurrently encouraging participants to discuss individual concerns. Four to six occupational therapists took part in each group discussion, which lasted 45–65 min and was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data collection continued until saturation was achieved and little new material was generated.

Data were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-step reflexive process. Data familiarisation was achieved by listening to recordings and reading the transcripts to gain an overview of the breadth of content. Preliminary codes were independently produced by the second and third authors and then discussed and compared by all authors. Additional codes were identified and examined in relation to each other. Debriefing between authors was conducted to discuss ambiguous statements and develop provisional themes. A narrative for each theme was written and themes were reviewed by all authors to ensure each theme was distinct. Within-interview member checking was used as participants were invited to summarise, clarify and verify points they discussed at the end of each focus group.

Findings

Study participants

Nineteen participants practising in hospital and community settings across seven different counties in Ireland participated in focus group discussions. Participants had an average of 6.7 years’ experience, with the majority having more than three years of experience working with older adults (63.16%, n = 19). Demographic and professional profiles are outlined in Table 1.

Three themes and six subthemes were identified following data analysis, as presented in Figure 1. Focus group excerpts are used to support the findings.

Theme 1: conceptualising frailty

Occupational therapists’ conceptualised frailty as a multidimensional condition. Participants discussed its impact on health and well-being and highlighted variance between HCPs’ and lay individuals’ understandings of frailty.

Multi-faceted condition

There was a general agreement among participants that frailty is complex and multi-faceted, encompassing numerous interlinked physical, psychological and social domains, thus requiring assessment of multiple factors including cognition, mobility, medication, falls and social participation. “Red flags” for frailty assessment included “being underweight […] limited social supports […] having a fall at home” (FG1P1). Participants stressed that the occupational therapy process cannot target one area alone, rather it requires “getting a general all-round sense of the patient” (FG4P5). At the core of clinician’s perspectives was a commonly held view that “a slight illness can really push somebody who's frail completely off” (FG1P2). Overall, frailty was considered to have “a big impact on the level of assistance someone would need” (FG1P3), ultimately placing one at risk of losing their independence. Indeed, participants associated frailty with poor health outcomes and described a vicious cycle with frailty posing a risk factor for comorbidities, whereas comorbidities are a risk factor for frailty.

Clinicians also recognised that frailty does not merely result in physical disabilities. The psychological impact of frailty on an individual was reported to be substantial, particularly in relation to loss of independence in activities of daily living (ADLs), which participants found typically affected older adult’s living with frailty self-esteem. Specific emphasis was placed on the need to consider the impact of the social domain on frailty, highlighting that:

If that frail older adult doesn’t have the social supports, it makes them even more vulnerable. (FG1P1)

Furthermore, participants highlighted the potentially protective factors of one’s social circumstances whereby physical and psychological frailty may be delayed if an individual lives in an environment that promotes social connections and facilitates opportunity for social engagement.

Misconceptions of frailty

It was evident throughout discussions that clinicians’ professional understanding of frailty was underpinned by clinical knowledge and expertise. However, the impact of socially constructed stereotypes was evident in their practice. Although they generally recognised that frailty is not an inevitable consequence of ageing, participants also related lay perceptions of frailty as a “kyphotic little person with a walking stick” (FG3P2). Despite participants feeling confident in their ability to separate lay and clinical understandings of frailty, they described how negative stereotypes of frailty lead to reticence in use of the term with older adults living with frailty and their families as “it feels like you’re calling them weak” (FG3P3). One clinician noted “I’ve never met anybody who has described themselves as frail” (FG4P1). It was largely felt that referring to someone as “frail” “would do more harm than good to the patients” (FG4P4), with participants noting that it would likely cause offence, provoke fear within a patient and may lead them to think “I’m frail, so I can’t do anything” (FG4P3).

Despite participants understanding that frailty is malleable, they reported that many older adults and their families do not recognise this as “there’s an outside context that paints a stereotype but that’s not a true reflection” (FG2P3). Many participants attributed patient and family member’s negative conceptions of frailty to media depictions of lonely, isolated and dependent individuals: “I think the media portray it as ‘once frail, always frail’” (FG3P4).

Furthermore, participants discussed how HCPs seem reluctant to challenge negative portrayals of older adults living with frailty, further fuelling the misconceptions of frailty. Participants acknowledged that if they are to use the term with patients and their families, it requires “educating them on what frail actually means” (FG4P2).

Theme 2: management of frailty

This theme examines the current assessment and management of frailty within Irish health-care services. Participants discussed commonly used assessments and interventions, as well as the importance of a multidisciplinary approach when working with an older adult living with frailty.

Assessment

Participants highlighted the importance of timely assessment:

“If it’s flagged early, we can improve the outcomes that this patient will have” (FG1P3). They reported that the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; Rockwood et al., 2005) is commonly used across settings to identify and assess frailty. In addition to the participants describing the CFS as “time-efficient”, “transferable” and “accepted by other healthcare professionals” (FG4P1), the scale was also reported to facilitate “a broader understanding” (FG1P3) of frailty among the MDT. Clinicians described a number of factors that can influence the scoring of the CFS and stressed the importance of gaining the “full picture” (FG2P6). In addition to standardised assessments, clinicians recommended the use of functional observations to facilitate more comprehensive frailty assessments:

People will often underreport just how they’re managing at home but when you physically get them up on their feet that’s when you get a clearer idea of what their frailty actually is. (FG2P4).

However, participants identified that it is typically not feasible in acute settings to carry out multiple frailty assessments due to resource and time constraints:

Everybody talks about the comprehensive geriatric assessments, but realistically, on an acute ward it’s not done to be honest. (FG1P1)

With this, participants highlighted the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to facilitate comprehensive, holistic assessments and that, ideally, functional frailty screening tools should be administered within the patient’s own home by community occupational therapists. Therefore, participants felt that onward referral to community services was critical.

Intervention

Participants stressed that a multidisciplinary approach to the management of frailty is paramount, resulting in improved patient outcomes, increased open communication among HCPs and reduced workload owing to fewer assessments being duplicated. Participants also stated that as occupational therapists “endeavour to be holistic” (FG4P1), they are well-placed to deliver interventions which would address multiple domains to those who are frail:

I’ve had conversations with consultants being like ‘the hip is okay’, but there’s a person attached to the hip and there’s a bit more that can be done for them. (FG2P1)

Clinicians noted that each “intervention is dependent on how frail the person is” (FG2P2). Typical intervention approaches reported by clinicians included education of patients and families in respect to both the condition and self-management strategies, onward referrals to community services, such as memory clinics, day-centres and respite care, and equipment provision which could make a “world of difference” (FG2P4).

Participants perceived “timely intervention” (FG1P4) as critical to reversing frailty and improving outcomes for the patient, with those working in acute settings also emphasising the importance of minimising the length of time a patient spends in hospital. Participants reported that supporting “positive risk-taking” (FG2P6) is central to enabling occupational participation of older adults living with frailty. Despite this, participants reported that HCPs often over-aid older adults living with frailty and prolong hospital admissions:

You see them in hospital and everyone’s natural instinct is to just kind of wrap all of this care around them […]. Which is actually the opposite of what we should be doing in order to try prevent the patient from deteriorating. (FG4P2)

Theme 3: advancing frailty practice

Participants identified the need to enhance the assessment and management of frailty within the Irish practice context, and this theme addresses the need for improvements to the education of undergraduate students and increased resourcing of health-care settings.

Education and training

Although participants recognised the “national drive” (FG2P5) regarding frailty research and education that has taken place in recent years, participants discussed the need for universities to include frailty education in undergraduate curricula:

I had no awareness of frailty when I was in college and learned all of it when I started working. (FG2P1)

Participants reported engaging in informal learning from social media platforms and podcasts and observing colleagues working with frail patients to educate themselves on frailty. Participants reported completing “The NFEP” training and organisation-based inter-disciplinary training as beneficial in developing their understanding and knowledge of frailty.

Shifting the focus of frailty services

Given the demographic changes in recent decades, participants viewed frailty as a pressing public health issue. It was widely felt among participants that a shift in focus in frailty services from acute care to primary care is required. While they supported the establishment of FIT services in emergency departments, they also recognised “in an ideal world, everybody talks about the comprehensive geriatric assessments, but realistically, on an acute ward it’s not done” (FG2P2). Participants reported that community and primary care services are best placed for the early identification of frailty and subsequent timely intervention. yet participants reported that primary care settings can be “disjointed” (FG3P4) and participants described waiting lists, inadequate staffing and resources as barriers to service provision: “When you’re referring people onto community services, they’re stretched, especially at the minute with staff shortages” (FG2P4). Participants highlighted that these inadequacies in health-care services have unfavourable ramifications such as increased disability, dependence, unnecessary or prolonged hospital admissions and long-term care admissions.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty and findings were consistent with recent research whereby occupational therapists view frailty as a dynamic, multidimensional condition that is impacted by physical, psychological and social domains (Coker et al., 2019). Participants also associated increased vulnerability with frailty, with older adults living with frailty perceived to be at a greater risk of disability and adverse outcomes. Similar to previous recommendations, occupational therapists advocated a multidisciplinary approach to manage the determinants, features and consequences of frailty (Coker et al., 2019; Hurst et al., 2021). Participants acknowledged the benefits of a collaborative approach among multidisciplinary colleagues such as improved patient outcomes and reduced workload. They also asserted that occupational therapists possess the skill set to provide person-centred care that takes into account the individual complexities of patients’ health within the context of their social environment. Participants placed particular emphasis on the centrality of the social domain to the frailty experience. Social components such as social isolation and loneliness have often been overlooked in definitions of frailty (Robbert J.J. Gobbens et al., 2010), yet they have proven to be important determinants when considering the future likelihood of frailty in older adults (Davies et al., 2021). Despite occupational therapists’ awareness of the need to consider the social aspect of frailty, participants reported that frailty assessments currently used in Irish practice primarily focus on the physical domain. This is consistent with research, which indicates that frailty assessments are often based solely on physical criteria (Sutton et al., 2016). Findings from our study support a need to move beyond considering frailty as a purely physical state, and yet indicates the need to strengthen our understanding of social frailty, the occupational consequences of this condition and impact of the social environment.

Despite widespread use of the term “frailty” in health care, it remains a complex concept with many meanings and interpretations and therefore poses communication challenges (Durepos et al., 2022; Lawless et al., 2020; Provencher et al., 2012). Occupational therapists in our study reported frequently using frailty terminology when communicating with other HCPs, citing enhanced communication and the development of positive working relationships as subsequent outcomes. However, recent literature reflects a discord between how frailty is conceptualised among HCPs and how older adults living with frailty view their own health state (Schoenborn et al., 2018). Participants cited this as a barrier to using frailty terminology, reporting seldom use of the term when communicating with patients and their families due to the stigmatised connotations that lay people associate with frailty. Participants supported claims that labelling someone as frail can lead to the stereotyping of an older adult as failing to age well (Durepos et al., 2022; Nicholson et al., 2017), which may be compounded by negative media portrayals. Participants reported that older adults did not identify with the term “frail”, similar to findings from Age UK (Age UK, British Geriatrics Society, 2015), who also found that older adults articulated their physical and mental well-being in terms of being able to complete everyday tasks independently. Occupational therapy could potentially offer an acceptable way of communicating frailty in clinical practice by framing frailty through an occupational lens and helping older adults identifying specific examples of living with frailty and subsequently encourage engagement with services.

A number of participants felt that positively framed frailty education and awareness could optimise identification and management. This corroborates recent findings by Blair (2023) which found that participating in occupational therapy-led community frailty education could influence older adults’ perceptions of frailty. In support of this, Cluley et al. (2022) suggested that frailty terminology can be used in a cautious and reflexive manner during discussions with patients. Durepos et al. (2022) suggested that clinicians should focus on person-first language and specific elements of frailty when discussing the condition with patients.

Training/education

Effective delivery of high-quality care and services to older adults living with frailty requires an in-depth understanding of the concept (Gee et al., 2019). However, findings from our study indicate that upon commencing employment, occupational therapists felt ill-equipped to deal with the complex needs of older adults living with frailty as they had not received any formal training in frailty during their undergraduate programmes. Similar to findings from a study by Avgerinou et al. (2021), participants attributed their knowledge and understanding of frailty to informal learning and clinical experience.

The need for continuing professional development training programmes for HCPs has been identified as crucial to increasing the uptake of assessment and management of frailty (Ruiz et al., 2020). The NFEP was established to prepare HCPs for a growing demand in older care skills (Lang et al., 2023). Although occupational therapists in our study provided positive feedback on the NFEP, they felt that it is imperative to incorporate frailty education into undergraduate curricula so that occupational therapists can be effective in the assessment, management and communication of frailty.

Strengths and limitations

Frailty is increasingly recognised as a significant public health challenge, and there is a growing body of research exploring how to operationalise, measure and manage frailty. This study provides novel information in relation to occupational therapists’ perceptions of frailty and is the first of its kind to be conducted in Ireland. Limitations of the study pertained to sample selection as participants were mainly from acute settings, with a lack of participants representing community settings. Findings may be transferable to many occupational therapists in Ireland; however, international applicability of the findings should be carefully considered, as this study demonstrated that frailty care is influenced by the availability of health-care resources and education.

Conclusion

In summary, this study provides valuable insights into the perceptions of frailty held by occupational therapists and indicates that such perceptions have an impact on the assessment and management of frailty across Irish health-care settings. Participants regarded occupational therapy as having an important role in the care of older adults living with frailty due to their holistic view and consideration of frailty extending beyond physical function. Notwithstanding occupational therapists’ collective perception of frailty as multidimensional, findings suggest a reluctance to use frailty terminology with patients, which may undermine care. Furthermore, while participants emphasised the importance of early intervention, they also highlighted a lack of resources, staffing and funding as barriers to effective community-based care. Finally, participants perceived the undergraduate education that they had received in relation to frailty to be inadequate, indicating a need for the development of undergraduate frailty education.

Figures

Themes

Figure 1

Themes

Participant profile

Demographic information Overall sample
(n)
%
Total number of participants
Female
19
19
100
100
Current position grade
Clinical specialist
Senior grade
Staff grade
3
6
10
15.79
31.58
52.63
Years of work experience
Less than 2 years
2–4 years
5–7 years
8–12 years
13–17 years
18+
Mean years’ experience
4
6
3
3
2
1
6.57 (SD: 6.38)
21.05
31.58
15.79
15.79
10.53
5.26
Highest level of education Completed
BSc
PG Certificate 
MSc
6
2
11
31.58
10.53
57.90
Client group currently working with
Older adults
Persons with stroke
Persons with dementia/cognitive impairments
15
3
1
78.95
15.79
5.26
Practice setting
Hospital-based (acute)
Rehabilitation
Community-based
14
4
1
73.68
21.05
5.26
Source:

Table created by authors

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.

References

Age UK, British Geriatrics Society (2015), Frailty: language and perceptions. A report prepared by Britain Thinks on behalf of Age UK and British Geriatrics Society.

Avgerinou, C., Kotsani, M., Gavana, M., Andreou, M., Papageorgiou, D.-I., Roka, V., Symintiridou, D., Manolaki, C., Soulis, G. and Smyrnakis, E. (2021), “Perceptions, attitudes and training needs of primary healthcare professionals in identifying and managing frailty: a qualitative study”, European Geriatric Medicine, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 321-332, doi: 10.1007/s41999-020-00420-0.

Blair, S. (2023), “Influencing perception of frailty risk in urban and rural older adults”, Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/02703181.2023.2213270.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021), Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide, Sage Publications, London.

Bryman, A. (2016), Social Research Methods, 5th ed Oxford University Press, London.

Clegg, A., Young, J., Iliffe, S., Rikkert, M.O. and Rockwood, K. (2013), “Frailty in elderly people”, The Lancet, Vol. 381 No. 9868, pp. 752-762, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9.

Cluley, V., Martin, G., Radnor, Z. and Banerjee, J. (2022), “Talking about frailty: health professional perspectives and an ideological dilemma”, Ageing and Society, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 204-222, doi: 10.1017/S0144686X20000884.

Coker, J.F., Martin, M.E., Simpson, R.M. and Lafortune, L. (2019), “Frailty: an in-depth qualitative study exploring the views of community care staff”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 19 No. 1, p. 47, doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1069-3.

Davies, K., Maharani, A., Chandola, T., Todd, C. and Pendleton, N. (2021), “The longitudinal relationship between loneliness, social isolation, and frailty in older adults in England: a prospective analysis”, The Lancet Healthy Longevity, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. e70-e77, doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30038-6.

De Coninck, L., Bekkering, G.E., Bouckaert, L., Declercq, A., Graff, M.J.L. and Aertgeerts, B. (2017), “Home- and community-based occupational therapy improves functioning in frail older people: a systematic review”, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 65 No. 8, pp. 1863-1869, doi: 10.1111/jgs.14889.

De Vriendt, P., Peersman, W., Florus, A., Verbeke, M. and Van De Velde, D. (2016), “Improving health related quality of life and independence in community dwelling frail older adults through a client-centred and activity-oriented program. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial”, J. Nutr. Health Aging, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 35-40, doi: 10.1007/s12603-016-0673-6.

Doody, P., Asamane, E.A., Aunger, J.A., Swales, B., Lord, J.M., Greig, C.A. and Whittaker, A.C. (2022), “The prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty among geriatric hospital inpatients and its association with economic prosperity and healthcare expenditure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 467,779 geriatric hospital inpatients”, Ageing Research Reviews, Vol. 80, p. 101666, doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101666.

Durepos, P., Sakamoto, M., Alsbury, K., Hewston, P., Borges, J. and Takaoka, A. (2022), “Older adults’ perceptions of frailty language: a scoping review”, Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 193-202, doi: 10.1017/S0714980821000180.

Fisher, A.G., Atler, K. and Potts, A. (2007), “Effectiveness of occupational therapy with frail community living older adults”, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 240-249, doi: 10.1080/11038120601182958.

Fried, L.P., Tangen, C.M., Walston, J., Newman, A.B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., Seeman, T., Tracy, R., Kop, W.J., Burke, G. and McBurnie, M.A. (2001), “Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype”, The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. M146-M157, doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146.

Fritz, H., Seidarabi, S., Barbour, R. and Vonbehren, A. (2019), “Occupational therapy intervention to improve outcomes among frail older adults: a scoping review”, The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 7303205130p1-7303205130p12, doi: 10.5014/ajot.2019.030585.

Gee, S.B., Cheung, G., Bergler, U. and Jamieson, H. (2019), “There’s more to frail than that”: older New Zealanders and health professionals talk about frailty”, Journal of Aging Research, Vol. 2019, p. 2573239, doi: 10.1155/2019/2573239.

Gobbens, R.J.J., Luijkx, K.G., Wijnen-Sponselee, M.T. and Schols, J.M.G.A. (2010), “Towards an integral conceptual model of frailty”, J. Nutr. Health Aging, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 175-181, doi: 10.1007/s12603-010-0045-6.

Gobbens, R.J.J., van Assen, M.A.L.M., Luijkx, K.G., Wijnen-Sponselee, M.T.H. and Schols, J.M.G.A. (2010), “Determinants of frailty”, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 356-364, doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.008.

Gustafsson, S., Eklund, K., Wilhelmson, K., Edberg, A.-K., Johansson, B., Kronlöf, G.H., Gosman-Hedström, G. and Dahlin-Ivanoff, S. (2013), “Long-term outcome for ADL following the health-promoting RCT—elderly persons in the risk zone”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 654-663, doi: 10.1093/geront/gns121.

Gwyther, H., Shaw, R., Dauden, E.-A., Jaime, D’Avanzo, B.D., Kurpas, Bujnowska-Fedak, M., Kujawa, T., Marcucci, M., Cano, A. and Holland, C. (2018), “Understanding frailty: a qualitative study of European healthcare policy-makers’ approaches to frailty screening and management”, BMJ Open, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. e018653, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018653.

Hurst, H., Nixon, A., Young, H.M. and Ancliffe, L. (2021), “Frailty and chronic kidney disease: a multidisciplinary approach”, Journal of Kidney Care, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 168-173, doi: 10.12968/jokc.2021.6.4.168.

Lang, D., Hoey, C., O’Shea, D. and Whitty, H. (2023), National Frailty Education Programme Report: The Fundamentals of Frailty.

Lawless, M.T., Archibald, M.M., Ambagtsheer, R.C. and Kitson, A.L. (2020), “Factors influencing communication about frailty in primary care: a scoping review”, Patient Education and Counseling, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 436-450, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.014.

Maloney, P., Clancy, I., Bernard, P., O’Riardan, Y., Lyons, O., Keogh, E., Hinch, A., Molloy, A., Hastings, N., Brennan, S. and Reddy, C. (2017), “Frailty intervention therapy team (FITT): a step in the right direction - integration of early interdisciplinary assessment in the emergency department”, International Journal of Integrated Care, Vol. 17 No. 5, p. 420, doi: 10.5334/ijic.3739.

Nicholson, C., Gordon, A.L. and Tinker, A. (2017), “Changing the way ‘we’ view and talk about frailty…”, Age and Ageing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 349-351, doi: 10.1093/ageing/afw224.

Provencher, V., Demers, L. and Gélinas, I. (2012), “Frailty: a concept under-utilised by occupational therapists”, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 328-331, doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2012.01030.x.

Richardson, S., Karunananthan, S. and Bergman, H. (2011), “I may be frail but I ain’t no failure”, Canadian Geriatrics Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 24-28, doi: 10.5770/cgj.v14i1.4.

Rockwood, K., Song, X., MacKnight, C., Bergman, H., Hogan, D.B., McDowell, I. and Mitnitski, A. (2005), “A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people”, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 173 No. 5, p. 489, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050051.

Roe, L., Normand, C., Wren, M.-A., Browne, J. and O’Halloran, A.M. (2017), “The impact of frailty on healthcare utilisation in Ireland: evidence from the Irish longitudinal study on ageing”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 203, doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0579-0.

Roland, K.P., Theou, O., Jakobi, J.M., Swan, L. and Jones, G.R. (2014), “How do community physical and occupational therapists classify frailty? A pilot study”, Journal of Frailty & Aging, Vol. 3, pp. 247-250, doi: 10.14283/jfa.2014.32.

Ruiz, J.G., Dent, E., Morley, J.E., Merchant, R.A., Beilby, J., Beard, J., Tripathy, C., Sorin, M., Andrieu, S., Aprahamian, I., Arai, H., Aubertin-Leheudre, M., Bauer, J.M., Cesari, M., Chen, L.-K., Cruz-Jentoft, A.J., De Souto Barreto, P., Dong, B., Ferrucci, L., Fielding, R., Flicker, L., Lundy, J., Reginster, J.Y., Rodriguez-Mañas, L., Rolland, Y., Sanford, A.M., Sinclair, A.J., Viña, J., Waters, D.L., Won, C.W., Woo, J. and Vellas, B. (2020), “Screening for and managing the person with frailty in primary care: ICFSR consensus guidelines”, J. Nutr. Health Aging, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 920-927, doi: 10.1007/s12603-020-1498-x.

Sandelowski, M. (2000), “Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res”, Nurs. Health, Vol. 23, pp. 334-340, doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G.

Schoenborn, N.L., Van Pilsum Rasmussen, S.E., Xue, Q.-L., Walston, J.D., McAdams-Demarco, M.A., Segev, D.L. and Boyd, C.M. (2018), “Older adults’ perceptions and informational needs regarding frailty”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 46, doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0741-3.

Sutton, J.L., Gould, R.L., Daley, S., Coulson, M.C., Ward, E.V., Butler, A.M., Nunn, S.P. and Howard, R.J. (2016), “Psychometric properties of multicomponent tools designed to assess frailty in older adults: a systematic review”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 55, doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0225-2.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P. and Craig, J. (2007), “Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 349-357, doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.

Walston, J., Buta, B. and Xue, Q.-L. (2018), “Frailty screening and interventions: considerations for clinical practice”, Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 25-38, doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2017.09.004.

Warmoth, K., Lang, I.A., Phoenix, C., Abraham, C., Andrew, M.K., Hubbard, R.E. and Tarrant, M. (2016), “Thinking you’re old and frail’: a qualitative study of frailty in older adults”, Ageing and Society, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1483-1500, doi: 10.1017/S0144686X1500046X.

Further reading

Andreasen, J., Lund, H., Aadahl, M. and Sørensen, E.E. (2015), “The experience of daily life of acutely admitted frail elderly patients one week after discharge from the hospital”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 27370, doi: 10.3402/qhw.v10.27370.

Cesari, M., Marzetti, E., Thiem, U., Pérez-Zepeda, M.U., Abellan Van Kan, G., Landi, F., Petrovic, M., Cherubini, A. and Bernabei, R. (2016), “The geriatric management of frailty as paradigm of ‘the end of the disease era’”, European Journal of Internal Medicine, Vol. 31, pp. 11-14, doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.005.

Kapan, A., Luger, E., Haider, S., Titze, S., Schindler, K., Lackinger, C. and Dorner, T.E. (2017), “Fear of falling reduced by a lay led home-based program in frail community-dwelling older adults: a randomised controlled trial”, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Vol. 68, pp. 25-32, doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2016.08.009.

Kelly, S., O’Brien, I., Smuts, K., O’Sullivan, M. and Warters, A. (2017), “Prevalence of frailty among community dwelling older adults in receipt of low level home support: a cross-sectional analysis of the North Dublin cohort”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 121, doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0508-2.

Mitnitski, A.B., Graham, J.E., Mogilner, A.J. and Rockwood, K. (2002), “Frailty, fitness and late-life mortality in relation to chronological and biological age”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 2 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-2-1.

Theou, O., Stathokostas, L., Roland, K.P., Jakobi, J.M., Patterson, C., Vandervoort, A.A. and Jones, G.R. (2011), “The effectiveness of exercise interventions for the management of frailty: a systematic review”, Journal of Aging Research, Vol. 2011, p. 569194, doi: 10.4061/2011/569194.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the occupational therapists who participated in focus group discussions in this study.

Corresponding author

Ruth Usher can be contacted at: ruth.usher@ucc.ie

Related articles