Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2023
Is the clinical frailty scale feasible to use in an emergency department setting? A mixed methods study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04931472 (Feasibility and Acceptability of the Clinical Frailty Scale in a Swedish Emergency Department Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Feasibility and Acceptability of the Clinical Frailty Scale in a Swedish Emergency Department Setting
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simplified clinical frailty scale predicts mortality in emergency department patients with acute dyspnea.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Being screened for frailty in the emergency department: the voice of patients in an exploratory qualitative study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Empowering Self-assessment of Frailty: A Revised CFS-Self Tool for Primary and Community Care.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2025Article
- Revisits and frailty in older patients in the emergency department - a prospective observational multicenter study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Frailty is associated with 30-day mortality: a multicentre study of Swedish emergency departments.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool used to identify frailty in older patients visiting the emergency department (ED). However, the current understanding of how it is used and accepted in ED clinical practice is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of CFS in an ED setting.
methodsThis was a prospective, mixed methods study conducted in three Swedish EDs where CFS had recently been introduced. We examined the completion rate of CFS assessments in relation to patient- and organisational factors. A survey on staff experience of using CFS was also conducted. All quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while free text comments underwent a qualitative content analysis.
resultsA total of 4235 visits were analysed, and CFS assessments were performed in 47%. The completion rate exceeded 50% for patients over the age of 80. Patients with low triage priority were assessed to a low degree (24%). There was a diurnal variation with the highest completion rates seen for arrivals between 6 and 12 a.m. (58%). The survey response rate was 48%. The respondents rated the perceived relevance and the ease of use of the CFS with a median of 5 (IQR 2) on a scale with 7 being the highest. High workload, forgetfulness and critical illness were ranked as the top three barriers to assessment. The qualitative analysis showed that CFS assessments benefit from a clear routine and a sense of apparent relevance to emergency care.
conclusionMost emergency staff perceived CFS as relevant and easy to use, yet far from all older ED patients were assessed. The most common barrier to assessment was high workload. Measures to facilitate use may include clarifying the purpose of the assessment with explicit follow-up actions, as well as formulating a clear routine for the assessment. REGISTRATION: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 2021-06-18 (identifier: NCT04931472).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.