scholarly journals Using the Clinical Frailty Scale in Allocating Scarce Health Care Resources

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Rockwood ◽  
Olga Theou

The key idea behind the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is that, as people age, they are more likely to have things wrong with them. Those things they have wrong (health deficits) can, as they accumulate, erode their ability to do the high order functions which define their overall health. These high order functions include being able to: think and do as they please; look after themselves; interact with other people; and move about without falling. The Clinical Frailty Scale brings that information together in one place. This paper is a guide for people new to the Clinical Frailty Scale. It also introduces an updated version (CFS version 2.0), with revised level names (e.g., “vulnerable” becomes “living with very mild frailty”) and minor edits to level descriptions. The key points discussed are that the Clinical Frailty Scale assays the baseline state, it is not widely validated in younger people or those with stable single-system disabilities, and it requires clinical judgement. The Clinical Frailty Scale is now commonly used as a triage tool to make important clinical decisions such as allocating scarce health care resources for COVID-19 management; therefore, it is important that the scale is used appropriately.

Refusal of vaccination by the population and a high percentage of medical contraindications for immunoprophylaxis remain an urgent problem of practical health care. The goal of the study is to study the awareness of Tyumen parents about the need for children’s immunoprophylaxis. The survey of 323 parents who came to pediatric departments of city polyclinics in Tyumen, selected by random sampling in 2018-2019, was conducted and its data were analyzed. The survey included questions describing the respondents` attitude to immunoprophylaxis of children. We analyzed the reasons of parents` refusal to administer individual vaccines and the distribution of medical diversions from routine vaccination according to the profile of a specialist doctor in a children's polyclinic. 87,0 % of respondents consider it necessary to vaccinate their children, 66,9 % of respondents carry out the entire volume of mandatory routine vaccination for their children. According to the results of the survey, there is a low awareness of parents regarding additional children’s vaccination. The key points of work with the population at the present stage is to reduce the refusal of vaccination by informing parents about the possibilities of preventive immunization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 383-384
Author(s):  
P. Immovilli ◽  
N. Morelli ◽  
E. Rota ◽  
D. Guidetti

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 169-171
Author(s):  
Joseph T. Giacino ◽  
Yelena G. Bodien ◽  
David Zuckerman ◽  
Jaimie Henderson ◽  
Nicholas D. Schiff ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e51004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jongho Heo ◽  
Juwhan Oh ◽  
Jukyung Kim ◽  
Manwoo Lee ◽  
Jin-seok Lee ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
NORMAN J. SISSMAN

To the Editor.— Two recent reviews in Pediatrics1,2 provide much interesting information on the effect of home visits on the health of women and children. However, I was disappointed not to find in either article more than token reference to the cost of the programs reviewed. In this day of increasingly scarce health care resources, we no longer have the luxury of evaluating programs such as these without detailed consideration of their cost-benefit ratio.


1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 319-337
Author(s):  
Loretta M. Kopelman ◽  
Michael G. Palumbo

What proportion of health care resources should go to programs likely to benefit older citizens, such as treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and hip replacements, and what share should be given to programs likely to benefit the young, such as prenatal and neonatal care? What portion should go to rare but severe diseases that plague the few, or to common, easily correctable illnesses that afflict the many? What percentage of funds should go to research, rehabilitation or to intensive care? Many nations have made such hard choices about how to use their limited funds for health care by explicitly setting priorities based on their social commitments. In the United States, however, allocation of health care resources has largely been left to personal choice and market forces. Although the United States spends around 14% of its gross national product (GNP) on health care, the United States and South Africa are the only two industrialized countries that fail to provide citizens with universal access.


1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry W. Foster ◽  
Linda J. McLellan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document