ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Improving comprehensive geriatric assessments with the clinical frailty scale: a focus group study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simplified clinical frailty scale predicts mortality in emergency department patients with acute dyspnea.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Caring for the frail: a qualitative study in an orthopaedic setting.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to exploratively evaluate the geriatric team's views on the implementation of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) on frail older people with acute orthopaedic disorders who are cared for in two geriatric care wards in the southwest of Sweden.
methodsA qualitative design with focus groups was applied, based on a social constructivist research tradition. This approach differs from other qualitative methods, such as interviews, in that it encourages interaction between research participants and contributes to shedding light on a collective understanding of the world. This means that the analysis is based on the group's collective input, not individual statements. The study group consisted of 21 professionals participating in four focus groups, with five to six participants per group. The participants in each group represented different professions within the geriatric team, including nurses, nursing assistants, physicians, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists.
resultsThe results underscore the importance of the CFS as the basis for CGA, emphasizing the effectiveness of the scale as a shared instrument promoting collaboration in healthcare. Our study uniquely points out the lack of research exploring the team-based use of tools for conducting a frailty assessment using the CFS. The study also highlights the importance of effective teamwork and a person-centred approach. The balance between person-centred care and what is feasible within the organization is crucial to providing the best possible care for patients.
conclusionsIn Sweden, as in other places, how healthcare staff experience their work is key to the quality of care. The study concludes that positive staff experiences with new approaches drive healthcare improvement, benefiting patients and society. This highlights the potential for further improvements in healthcare delivery through continued innovation and collaboration.
trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable.
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.