Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-022-00641-5 RESEARCH PAPER The assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype in the outpatient care of older people: implementation and typical values obtained from the Newcastle SarcScreen project R. M. Dodds1,2,3 · P. Heslop4 · J. Jaffar1 · K. Davies1 · J. M. Noble3 · F. E. Shaw3 · M. D. Witham1,2,3 · A. A. Sayer1,2,3 Received: 22 December 2021 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published online: 9 April 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Key summary points Aim Is it possible to implement the Newcastle SarcScreen, an assessment of sarcopenia and physical frailty, as part of the outpatient care of older people? Findings Grip strength measurement was possible in 98.2% and gait speed in 82.1%, with the latter typically not measured due to mobility impairment. We found a high prevalence of probable sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype across all age groups studied. Message We successfully implemented the Newcastle SarcScreen. The proforma is available to download as part of this article. Abstract Purpose Sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype both indicate older adults at risk of adverse health outcomes and yet are not widely assessed in practice. We developed the Newcastle SarcScreen to enable assessment of these two ageing syndromes during clinical care. In the setting of our Older People’s Medicine Day Unit, our aims were to describe the implementation of the SarcScreen and to examine the typical values obtained. Methods The SarcScreen comprised height, weight, questions (three on the Fried frailty phenotype and five on the SARC-F questionnaire), grip strength and gait speed. We analysed data from 552 patients completing the SarcScreen. We expressed grip strength as Z-scores (number of standard deviations above the mean expected for a patient’s age and sex). Results It was possible to implement the SarcScreen. In 552 patients (65.9% females) with mean age 80.1 (7.7) years, grip strength was feasible in 98.2% and gait speed in 82.1%. Gait speed was typically not assessed due to mobility impairment. Most patients had weak grip strength (present in 83.8%), slow gait speed (88.8%) and the frailty phenotype (66.2%). We found a high prevalence of probable sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype across all age groups studied. This was reflected by low grip strength Z-scores, especially at younger ages: those aged 60–69 had grip strength 2.7 standard deviations (95% CI 2.5–2.9) below that expected. Conclusion It is possible to implement an assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype as part of the routine outpatient care of older people. Keywords Sarcopenia · Frailty · Grip strength · Walking speed · Implementation · Usual care Introduction The presence of sarcopenia and frailty has been exten- sively shown to be important in the current and future health of older people [1, 2]. In 2018 the European Work- ing Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) consensus defined sarcopenia as a progressive and gen- eralised skeletal muscle disorder, and made recommen- dations for its assessment in clinical practice [3]. These * A. A. Sayer avan.sayer@newcastle.ac.uk 1 AGE Research Group, Newcastle University Institute for Translational and Clinical Research, Newcastle, UK 2 NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle University and Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, 3rd Floor Biomedical Research Building, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle NE4 5PL, UK 3 Department of Older People’s Medicine, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK 4 School of Design, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4968-7678 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9607-102X http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2820-9397 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9744-2977 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1967-0990 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1283-6457 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s41999-022-00641-5&domain=pdf 764 European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 1 3 included the use of the SARC-F questionnaire [4] to identify those at risk of sarcopenia, and the assessment of muscle strength using grip strength [5] and/or the chair stand test [6], with weakness from either being a basis on which to assess potential causes of sarcopenia and start intervention. In the EWGSOP2 consensus, confir- mation of the diagnosis of sarcopenia can then made by measurement of muscle mass if available, and severity of sarcopenia assessed using tools such as usual gait speed. Frailty describes a state of diminished reserve across multiple physiological systems, such that a minor stressor can lead to a marked deterioration in health [2]. A range of approaches have been used to characterise frailty includ- ing the frailty phenotype developed by Fried et al. [7]. The frailty phenotype incorporates grip strength and gait speed, as well as questions regarding weight loss, physical inactiv- ity and exhaustion. Hence common to both sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype are the physical function measures of grip strength and gait speed. There is some evidence that sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype can be implemented in routine clinical care [8] but to date this has not been widespread [9]. The assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype in clinical care is important for several reasons. As above, it identifies patients at risk of poor health outcomes, as well as those who stand to benefit from current treatments for low muscle strength including progressive resistance exer- cise training and increased dietary protein [10, 11]. The diagnosis of sarcopenia or frailty is also important to aid in the identification of patients who may be eligible for the growing number of trials in patients with these conditions [12]. Finally, most cut-points for measures of physical func- tion are based on normative data from large community- dwelling studies of older people [13, 14] and it is important to establish if such cut-points are helpful to identify older people in clinical care who are at greatest risk of adverse health outcomes. Our Older People’s Medicine Day Unit sees older people referred from primary care, many of whom have complex multimorbidity as well as impairment of physi- cal function. Patients receive a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) delivered by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) [15]. In 2018 we developed and incorporated the Newcastle SarcScreen, an assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype, as part of the CGA process we deliver. The aims of this study were (i) to describe the implementation of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype into the routine care of patients attending our Day Unit, and (ii) to compare the SarcScreen values obtained from a large sample of our patients to recommended cut-points and normative data. Methods Clinical setting and patients Our Older People’s Medicine Day Unit is one of the special- ist services provided by Newcastle Hospitals in northeast England. The SarcScreen proforma was completed by the Day Unit nurses as part of the routine assessments they car- ried out on all new patients. We examined results from Sarc- Screen proformas completed between June 2018 and March 2020, at which time in-person clinical reviews were tempo- rarily suspended due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The data were collected on a spreadsheet and stored within the Trust network with approval from the local Caldicott guardian. As the analysis used data already collected as part of rou- tine clinical care, with no new patient contact or additional data collection, the project did not require evaluation by a research ethics committee. Data were anonymized within the trust before export for analysis. Implementation of the Newcastle SarcScreen The Day Unit nurses assessed the components of Sarc- Screen, following training sessions delivered by an expe- rienced researcher (KD) when the SarcScreen was intro- duced. A standard operating procedure document was also provided. We used feedback from colleagues in the Day Unit and observation of the tool being used to refine the proforma, as described in the results. Height (cm) and weight (kg) were either measured or reported by the patient. Three questions covered the components of the Fried frailty phenotype as follows: (i) unintentional weight loss of more than 10 lb in the last year, (ii) frequency of physical activity requiring a low or moderate level of energy (with less than once a week considered to be low physical activity), and (iii) number of days in the past week where everything was an effort for a patient or they could not get going (with 3 or more days considered to represent exhaustion) [7]. Further questions addressed the five components of the SARC-F questionnaire, comprising difficulty in (i) lifting and carrying 10 pounds, (ii) walking across a room, (iii) transferring from a chair or bed, and (iv) climbing a flight of ten stairs, with all scored zero for no difficulty, one for some and two for those with a lot of difficulty/unable to perform the activity in question. A fifth question asked about the number of falls in the past year, scored zero for none, one for 1–3 times and two for four or more falls. A total score of four or more indicates a high risk of sarcopenia being present [4]. The SARC-F ques- tions were not included in the initial version of the proforma (meaning that for the first 37 patients these questions were not attempted). 765European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 1 3 Grip strength was measured using a Jamar hydraulic dynamometer in the seated position with the patient’s forearm rested on the arm of a chair, with the weight of dynamometer supported by the assessor [5]. In an initial version of the proforma we only attempted one trial in each hand (n = 37), but thereafter changed to two trials in each hand. We took the maximum of the available tri- als. Males with a strength below 27 kg and females below 16 kg, the cut-points for probable sarcopenia endorsed by the EWGSOP2 guideline, were considered to have weak grip strength [3]. Gait speed was attempted in patients who could usually walk without the assistance of another per- son, and where the nurse carrying out the assessment con- sidered it was safe to proceed. Patients were timed walking along a marked 3 m course, with the stopwatch started when their foot crossed the first marker and stopped when they crossed the second. A gait speed of 0.8 m/s or below was considered to be slow [14, 16]. There was space to note a reason if it was not possible to complete the grip strength and/or gait speed tests. The presence of the three frailty questions, weak grip strength, and slow gait speed were used to create a Fried frailty score out of five. We classed patients unable to com- plete tests due to health reasons as having poor performance for the purpose of the Fried frailty score [17]. Frailty was indicated by a score of three or more, and pre-frailty by a score of one or two. A copy of the proforma is provided in Supplementary Material 1. Statistical analysis We calculated the proportion of patients completing each component of the SarcScreen. We tested if there were age or sex differences in the SarcScreen components. T test was used for comparison of mean values, and a chi-square test for proportions. We compared our grip strength values to published British normative data [13], by expressing each patient’s value as a Z-score. Each Z-score is calcu- lated as the patient’s grip strength value less the mean expected for their age and sex, divided by the grip strength standard deviation (SD) for their age and sex. As such Z-scores have no units (kg/kg). Z-scores of + 1 and − 1 indicate grip strength values one standard deviation above and below, respectively, that expected for age and sex. We divided the sample into age groups by decade (60–69, 70–79 and so on) and calculated the mean and 95% con- fidence interval for the Z-score in each age group (having first checked by inspection of the data that the Z-scores were normally distributed). We performed all analyses using Stata version 14.0 [18]. Results Implementation of the SarcScreen We did not experience any adverse events related to the use of the SarcScreen. The assessment was readily incor- porated into the range of other measures such as testing of cognition during a CGA. Feedback from colleagues in the MDT highlighted how measures such as grip strength gave an easy-to-interpret assessment of a person’s physical func- tion, helpful for situations such as in discussion at an MDT meeting including as a means for identifying patients who might have particular benefit from Physiotherapy input. We explored the incorporation of multi-segmental bioim- pedance to assess muscle mass, although did not proceed due to concerns that the step-up onto the device presented a falls risk. We developed a standard operating procedure document to accompany the original SarcScreen proforma. We found that in practice this was not always easy for team members to locate, and so modified the form to include a summary of the instructions for the grip strength and gait speed assessment. The SarcScreen proforma is provided in Supplementary Material 1. It was possible to complete the body size and question- naire measures in almost all patients: height and weight in 99.3%, questionnaire components of the Fried frailty phe- notype in 96.0%, and the SARC-F questionnaire in 94.2% of those attempted. It was possible to measure grip strength in 98.2% of patients, with a further 1.1% unable to attempt due to health reasons (in all cases due to pain in the wrist or hand such as from arthritis) and no reason recorded in 0.7% of patients. It was possible to measure gait speed in 82.1% of patients (of whom 38.4% used a walking aid). Gait speed was not completed in 8.3% of patients due to reduced mobility, 1.3% due to breathlessness and in a further 8.3% no reason was recorded. Non-completion of gait speed was more common in those with a SARC-F score of eight or more, and those reporting low physical activity or exhaus- tion. A Fried frailty phenotype score could be assigned in 87.9% of patients. Examination of values obtained from the SarcScreen We examined results from 552 patients (65.9% female) with mean age 80.1 (7.7) years assessed using the SarcScreen. There were no marked sex differences in the values obtained, as shown in Table 1. The mean BMI of participants was in the overweight range at 27.4 (6.93) kg/m2. A SARC-F score of 4 or more (present in 75.2%), weak grip strength (present in 83.8%), and slow gait speed (present in 88.8%) as per 766 European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 1 3 the EWGSOP2 cut-points were all common. Approximately one-quarter (24.4%) were below cut-points for two of the three measures, and approximately two-thirds (63.3%) were below the cut-points for all three. This is shown in the form of a Venn diagram in Fig. 1. The questionnaire components of the Fried frailty phenotype were also common, especially low physical activity (present in 38.0%) and exhaustion (pre- sent in 54.9%). This combined with the grip strength and gait speed values meant that Fried frailty was present in 66.2% of the sample. We did not find evidence of an increase in the prevalence of a positive SARC-F score, weak grip strength, slow gait speed or Fried frailty with age, but rather we observed simi- lar values across the different age groups. For example, the prevalence of a positive SARC-F score was 74.1% below age 81 (the median age of the sample) and 75.6% at age 81 and above. The Z-scores for grip strength by age group showed that all age groups had mean grip strength values below those expected for their age and sex based on exist- ing British normative data. This was especially the case in younger patients, as shown in Fig. 2. For example, patients aged 60–69 had a mean grip strength 2.7 standard deviations (95% CI 2.5, 2.9) below that expected, compared to patients aged 90–98 where the mean was 1.0 standard deviations (95% CI 0.8, 1.3) lower. Discussion We successfully implemented an assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype as part of the routine outpatient care of older people attending our Older People’s Medi- cine Day Unit. We have shown that completion of relevant questionnaire measures and of grip strength was possible in nearly all patients. Measurement of gait speed was not completed in almost one-fifth of patients, although this was associated with a raised SARC-F score and hence is likely to be a marker of poor mobility. There was a high prevalence of poor performance such as weak grip strength and this was similar in both younger and older age groups. The CGA process that we use in the Day Unit already included several questionnaire measures and so we antici- pated that the SARC-F and Fried frailty questions would be possible to implement. We also found that grip strength measurement was possible, with only a small proportion of patients (approximately 1%) unable to complete the assess- ment. This was less than in a study of the implementation of grip strength in acute hospital wards for older people, where a range of health issues including acute illness and severe confusion led to around one-fifth of patients being unable to complete grip strength [8]. In a similar manner, a research study conducted with older patients on acute Table 1 Summary values from Newcastle SarcScreen, by sex All mean (SD) unless otherwise stated *From a t test for comparison of mean values, and a chi-square test for proportions † Includes those unable to perform the test due to health reasons n All (max n = 552) Males (max n = 188) Females (max n = 364) P value for sex differ- ence* Age (years) 552 80.1 (7.7) 80.1 (7.7) 80.1 (7.7) 0.9 BMI (kg/m2) 548 27.4 (6.93) 27.2 (5.0) 27.5 (6.9) 0.6 SARC-F 485 0.09 0–3 [n (%)] 122 (25.2) 51 (31.3) 71 (22.1) 4–7 [n (%)] 234 (48.3) 72 (44.2) 162 (50.3) 8–10 [n (%)] 129 (26.6) 40 (24.5) 89 (27.6) Grip strength (kg) 542 Not reported 18.9 (7.1) 10.9 (5.7) Not tested Weak grip strength [n (%)]† 548 459 (83.8%) 161 (86.1%) 298 (82.6%) 0.3 Gait speed (m/s) 453 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.048 Slow gait speed [n (%)]† 506 454 (89.7%) 149 (87.1%) 305 (91.0%) 0.2 Unintentional weight loss [n (%)] 542 142 (26.2%) 52 (28.1) 90 (25.2) 0.5 Low physical activity [n (%)] 547 208 (38.0%) 73 (39.5%) 135 (37.3%) 0.6 Exhaustion [n (%)] 545 299 (54.9%) 96 (51.6%) 203 (56.6%) 0.3 Fried phenotype 485 0.2 0 (Non-frail) 12 (2.5%) 2 (1.2%) 10 (3.1%) 1–2 (Pre-frail) 152 (31.3%) 59 (35.8%) 93 (29.1%) 3+ (Frail) 321 (66.2%) 104 (63.0%) 217 (67.8%) 767European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 1 3 medicine wards found that gait speed was not possible in a much higher proportion of patients than seen in our Day Unit (66% compared to 18%) [19]. In terms of the typical values in our patient group, two findings stood out. First, we observed a high proportion of patients who fell below the relevant cut-points in the EWGSOP2 definition, or who met the criteria for the Fried frailty phenotype, or both. For example, 84% of patients fell below the EWGSOP2 cut-points for grip strength. This contrasts with a lower proportion of weak grip strength seen in a research study of sarcopenia prevalence in another Day Unit setting of 49% [20]. A range of factors are likely to explain this difference, but one possibility is that older people with low strength may be less likely to Fig. 1 Venn diagram showing overlap of sarcopenia compo- nents. n = 439 with information on all three components. Based on cut-points for weak grip strength, slow gait speed, and a positive SARC-F score provided in the EWGSOP2 guidance N=439 with information on all three components. Based on cut-points for weak grip strength, slow gait speed and a positive SARC-F score provided in the EWGSOP2 guidance. Weak grip (84%) Slow gait (89%) SARC-F positive (75%) Fig. 2 Grip strength values expressed relative to British normative data, by age group. The plot shows the mean grip strength Z-score for each age group. A grip strength Z-score is the number of standard devia- tions above that expected for a patient’s age and sex, and hence negative values indicate lower grip strength than expected. For full description see “Methods” section The plot shows the mean grip strength Z-score for each age group. A grip strength Z-score is the number of standard deviations above that expected for a patient’s age and sex, and hence negative values indicate lower grip strength than expected. For full description see methods section. -3 -2 -1 0 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-98 Age group (years) Mean Z-score 95% CI 768 European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 1 3 be recruited into research. The high prevalence of weak grip strength (and hence probable sarcopenia) highlights the importance of having access to resistance exercise interventions for this patient group [10]. Another benefit of identifying probable sarcopenia and/or the frailty phe- notype in patients is that it may facilitate recruitment to the growing number of research studies including trials in this area [12]. Second, we observed similar grip strength values in young-old and older patients, in contrast to findings from normative data from the general population where mean grip strength tends to decline from mid-life onwards [13]. This was highlighted by our finding of a significantly lower mean Z-score among the young-old compared to the older age groups, and may reflect the nature of patients seen in our Day Unit, where functional impairment (including mobility impairment) is a key reason for referral regardless of age. These two findings highlight the importance of analysing data collected during routine care, which may in turn sug- gest lower cut-points to identify those most at risk. Related to this, recent analyses performed by the Sarcopenia Defini- tions and Outcomes Consortium suggest that a cut-point for gait speed of 0.6 m/s performs better than 0.8 m/s in identi- fying individuals with mobility limitation [21]. Limitations of the present study include that we did not assess chair stand test performance [6] or muscle mass. These are areas for future work in the development of the SarcScreen. The results of the paper proforma were also not directly stored in our hospital’s electronic healthcare record. We have recently implemented a version of the SarcScreen with direct storage of results in the electronic healthcare record and in the future this should enable further analyses including associations with outcomes [22]. We used infor- mation from saved copies of the SarcScreen proforma and it is possible that some patients attending did not have a form completed, although to our knowledge this was uncommon. A strength is that we collected and analysed a large sample of routine data relevant to the outpatient care of older peo- ple. This included the reasons for non-completion of physi- cal performance tests, with health-related reasons having previously been shown to be associated with adverse health outcomes including reduced survival times [17]. In conclusion, it is possible to implement an assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype as part of the routine care of older people attending an Older People’s Medicine Day Unit. The Newcastle SarcScreen can be used to identify these ageing syndromes which are amenable to treatments such as progressive resistance exercise training, and are also the focus of a growing number of clinical trials. Most patients fell below cut-points proposed in the EWGSOP2 definition, and hence an area for future work is to examine these and other cut-points in the clinical prediction of key health outcomes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s41999- 022- 00641-5. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all members of the Older People’s Medicine Day Unit team including the nursing staff who undertook the data collection. Funding AAS is Director of the NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre based at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Declarations Conflict of interest None of the authors have conflicts of interest to declare. Ethical approval As the analysis used data already collected as part of routine clinical care, with no new patient contact or additional data collection, the project did not require evaluation by a research ethics committee. Data were anonymized within the trust before export for analysis. Informed consent As the study used data collected as part of routine clinical care, with no new patient contact or additional data collection, formal consent was not required. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References 1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA (2019) Sarcopenia. Lancet 393(10191):2636–2646 2. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K (2013) Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 381(9868):752–762 3. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyere O, Ceder- holm T et al (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48(1):16–31 4. Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Morley JE (2016) SARC-F: a symptom score to predict persons with sarco- penia at risk for poor functional outcomes. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 7(1):28–36 5. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, Patel HP, Syddall H, Cooper C et al (2011) A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing 40(4):423–429 6. Dodds RM, Murray JC, Granic A, Hurst C, Uwimpuhwe G, Rich- ardson S et al (2021) Prevalence and factors associated with poor performance in the 5-chair stand test: findings from the Cognitive https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-022-00641-5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 769European Geriatric Medicine (2022) 13:763–769 1 3 Function and Ageing Study II and proposed Newcastle protocol for use in the assessment of sarcopenia. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 12(2):308–318 7. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gott- diener J et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a pheno- type. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56A(3):M146–M156 8. Ibrahim K, May CR, Patel HP, Baxter M, Sayer AA, Roberts HC (2018) Implementation of grip strength measurement in medicine for older people wards as part of routine admission assessment: identifying facilitators and barriers using a theory-led interven- tion. BMC Geriatr 18:79 9. Offord NJ, Clegg A, Turner G, Dodds RM, Sayer AA, Witham MD (2019) Current practice in the diagnosis and management of sarcopenia and frailty—results from a UK-wide survey. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls 4(3):71–77 10. Hurst C, Robinson SM, Witham MD, Dodds RM, Granic A, Buckland C et al (2022) Resistance exercise as a treatment for sarcopenia: prescription and delivery. Age Ageing 51(2):1–10 11. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Landi F, Schneider SM, Zuniga C, Arai H, Boirie Y et al (2014) Prevalence of and interventions for sarco- penia in ageing adults: a systematic review. Report of the Interna- tional Sarcopenia Initiative (EWGSOP and IWGS). Age Ageing 43(6):748–59 12. Witham MD, Heslop P, Dodds RM, Clegg AP, Hope SV, McDon- ald C et al (2021) Developing a UK sarcopenia registry: recruit- ment and baseline characteristics of the SarcNet pilot. Age Ageing 50:1–8 13. Dodds RM, Syddall HE, Cooper R, Benzeval M, Deary IJ, Den- nison EM et al (2014) Grip strength across the life course: norma- tive data from twelve British studies. PLoS One 9(12):e113637 14. Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, Rosano C, Faulkner K, Inzitari M et al (2011) Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA 305(1):50–58 15. British Geriatrics Society. Fit for frailty. 2017. Available at: https:// www. bgs. org. uk/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ conte nt/ resou rces/ files/ 2018- 05- 23/ fff_ full. pdf. Accessed 3 May 2020 16. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on defini- tion and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing 39(4):412–423 17. Cooper R, Strand B, Hardy R, Patel K, Kuh D (2014) Physical capability in mid-life and survival over 13 years of follow-up: British birth cohort study. BMJ 348:g2219 18. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 14. 2015. 19. Ibrahim K, Howson FFA, Culliford DJ, Sayer AA, Roberts HC (2019) The feasibility of assessing frailty and sarcopenia in hospi- talised older people: a comparison of commonly used tools. BMC Geriatr 19(1):1–7 20. Connolly K, Cunningham C, Murphy N, Romero-Ortuno R, Hor- gan F (2021) Prevalence of sarcopenia and associated factors in older adults attending a day hospital service in Ireland. Eur Geriatr Med 12:851–862 21. Cawthon PM, Patel SM, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, Santa- nasto A, Kiel DP et al (2021) What cut-point in gait speed best discriminates community dwelling older adults with mobility complaints from those without? A pooled analysis from the Sar- copenia definitions and outcomes consortium. Journals Gerontol Ser A 76(110):e321–e327 22. Romero-Ortuno R, Wallis S, Biram R, Keevil V (2016) Clini- cal frailty adds to acute illness severity in predicting mortality in hospitalized older adults: an observational study. Eur J Intern Med 35:24–34 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://www.bgs.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/resources/files/2018-05-23/fff_full.pdf https://www.bgs.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/resources/files/2018-05-23/fff_full.pdf The assessment of sarcopenia and the frailty phenotype in the outpatient care of older people: implementation and typical values obtained from the Newcastle SarcScreen project Key summary points Aim Findings Message Abstract Purpose Methods Results Conclusion Introduction Methods Clinical setting and patients Implementation of the Newcastle SarcScreen Statistical analysis Results Implementation of the SarcScreen Examination of values obtained from the SarcScreen Discussion Acknowledgements References