Specialist commentator comments
Three specialist commentators agreed that QTUG is expensive compared to standard testing. They reflected that the total cost of hardware, software licence fees may be prohibitively high and may not offer value for money over and above existing assessments. They noted that many centres would need more than one QTUG and this would increase the cost.
One specialist commentator stated that lower grade staff could be used to do the QTUG test, but that a full clinical assessment with qualified professionals would still be needed and therefore the potential savings may not be realised. Another specialist commentator stated that lower grade staff are already undertaking falls assessments, while another commented that the standard TUG could be administered by lower grade staff with minimal training. One specialist commentator noted that there should be an estimate of the time required for a healthcare professional to administer and interpret QTUG compared with TUG.
One specialist commentator did not feel that QTUG would provide a robust method of assessing frailty compared with currently used markers and systems. They felt that QTUG could measure some aspects of frailty associated with slow gait speed and low physical activity, but that these were only a small component of frailty.
One specialist commentator stated that the research studies used to establish the validity of QTUG were of a low standard (noting that no randomised controlled trial evidence was available). Another commentator stated that QTUG requires further research to validate its use in adults with a physical disability or neurological disease.