Table 3 Perspectives of 6 proposed tools from stakeholders

Fried’s Frailty Phenotype

Objective (N = 40)

Relevant to work (N = 12)

Quick to administer (N = 11)

Simple to do (N = 8)

Not comprehensive (N = 21)

Takes time (N = 11)

Difficult to administer (N = 11)

Not suitable for department (N = 9)

Not useful (N = 5)

Frailty Index

Comprehensive (N = 46)

Relevant to work (N = 19)

Straightforward (N = 9)

Simple to do (N = 8)

Objective (N = 8)

Takes time (N = 43)

Difficult to administer (N = 25)

Not suitable for department (N = 14)

FRAIL Questionnaire

Quick to administer (N = 38)

Simple to do (N = 37)

Self-administered (N = 24)

Relevant to work (N = 9)

Not comprehensive (N = 27)

Not suitable for department (N = 15)

Self-administered (N = 14)

Not Useful/Not meaningful (N = 13)

Difficult to administer (N = 7)

Clinical Frailty Scale

Quick to administer (N = 50)

Have pictures (N = 23)

Simple to do (N = 23)

Relevant to work (N = 19)

Objective (N = 7)

Subjective (N = 21)

Not Comprehensive (N = 10)

Not suitable for department (N = 9)

Edmonton Frail Scale

Relevant to work (N = 25)

Comprehensive (N = 21)

Quick to administer (N = 20)

Simple to do (N = 14)

Simple scoring (N = 8)

Takes time (N = 18)

Difficult to administer (N = 15)

Not suitable for department (N = 13)

Tilburg Frailty Indicator

Comprehensive (N = 17)

Self-administered (N = 12)

Simple to do (N = 10)

Relevant for work (N = 6)

Not useful (N = 18)

Difficult to administer (N = 14)

Not applicable to Singapore (N = 10)

Self-administered (N = 8)

Takes time (N = 9)