Frailty is the most problematic expression of population ageing. It is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homoeostasis after a stressor event and is a consequence of cumulative decline in many physiological systems during a lifetime. This cumulative decline depletes homoeostatic reserves until minor stressor events trigger disproportionate changes in health status. In landmark studies, investigators have developed valid models of frailty and these models have allowed epidemiological investigations that show the association between frailty and adverse health outcomes. We need to develop more efficient methods to detect frailty and measure its severity in routine clinical practice, especially methods that are useful for primary care. Such progress would greatly inform the appropriate selection of elderly people for invasive procedures or drug treatments and would be the basis for a shift in the care of frail elderly people towards more appropriate goal-directed care.

Background: frailty is an especially problematic expression of population ageing. International guidelines recommend routine identification of frailty to provide evidence-based treatment, but currently available tools require additional resource.Objectives: to develop and validate an electronic frailty index (eFI) using routinely available primary care electronic health record data.Study design and setting: retrospective cohort study. Development and internal validation cohorts were established using a randomly split sample of the ResearchOne primary care database. External validation cohort established using THIN database.Participants: patients aged 65–95, registered with a ResearchOne or THIN practice on 14 October 2008.Predictors: we constructed the eFI using the cumulative deficit frailty model as our theoretical framework. The eFI score is calculated by the presence or absence of individual deficits as a proportion of the total possible. Categories of fit, mild, moderate and severe frailty were defined using population quartiles.Outcomes: outcomes were 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission.Statistical analysis: hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using bivariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was assessed using pseudo-R2 estimates.Results: we include data from a total of 931,541 patients. The eFI incorporates 36 deficits constructed using 2,171 CTV3 codes. One-year adjusted HR for mortality was 1.92 (95% CI 1.81–2.04) for mild frailty, 3.10 (95% CI 2.91–3.31) for moderate frailty and 4.52 (95% CI 4.16–4.91) for severe frailty. Corresponding estimates for hospitalisation were 1.93 (95% CI 1.86–2.01), 3.04 (95% CI 2.90–3.19) and 4.73 (95% CI 4.43–5.06) and for nursing home admission were 1.89 (95% CI 1.63–2.15), 3.19 (95% CI 2.73–3.73) and 4.76 (95% CI 3.92–5.77), with good to moderate discrimination but low calibration estimates.Conclusions: the eFI uses routine data to identify older people with mild, moderate and severe frailty, with robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. Routine implementation of the eFI could enable delivery of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group.

More than half of older cancer patients have pre-frailty or frailty and these patients are at increased risk of chemotherapy intolerance, postoperative complications and mortality. The findings of this review support routine assessment of frailty in older cancer patients to guide treatment decisions, and the development of multidisciplinary geriatric oncology services.