• Shosuke Satake and Hidenori Arai.
• aDepartment of Frailty Research, Center for Gerontology and Social Science bDepartment of Comprehensive Geriatric Medicine, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Aichi, Japan.
• Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2017 Jan 1; 20 (1): 4-10.

Purpose Of ReviewMany frailty screening instruments have been proposed due to the lack of consensus on a unified operational definition of frailty. This review reports on recent frailty screening tools in addition to revisiting the frailty concept.Recent FindingsAlthough there are two representative frailty models, both have issues that prevent them from being implemented in clinical settings despite their remarkable advantages. Due to their different characteristics, these models are thought to be complementary rather than substitutive. The recent introduction of frailty identification into primary care and specific clinical settings has led to both a focus on its importance and the development of new screening methods.SummaryThe phenotype model is rather faithfully based on biological change with aging, while the deficit model comprehensively captures risk of disability. Most of the current frailty screening tools are based on these models. Screening tools based on the former model primarily capture declines in physical functions, whereas screening tools based on the latter model involve questionnaires that examine functional impairments in multiple domains. Implementation of a model in a clinical setting depends on both the model characteristics and the clinical settings.

9 keywords...

hide…