ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving the suspected cauda equina syndrome pathway at a district general hospital: a quality improvement project.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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.
- Clinical Profile of Neurosurgical Consultations from the Emergency Department : A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Luton cauda equina syndrome pathway: a pragmatic approach to achieve a national target of time to scan in UK district general hospitals.Bone & joint open · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a surgical emergency caused by acute compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots, requiring urgent surgical decompression. Delays in management can lead to permanent bowel and bladder incontinence, sexual dysfunction, lower limb paralysis and chronic pain.The Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) National CES Pathway 2023 mandates that patients with red flag symptoms require an 'emergency MRI as soon as possible, certainly within 4 hours of request'. However, an audit at Medway Hospital (MH) showed that despite achieving this target, patients still experience delays from emergency department (ED) attendance (time of arrival) to MRI scan (median 5.9 hours).In response, MH launched a CES working group of orthopaedic surgeons, radiologists, emergency doctors and managers. Having identified time to MRI request as a major driver of delays, the team altered the GIRFT target to a SMART primary aim of 4 hours from ED presentation to MRI. Two key interventions were planned: (1) the translation of the GIRFT guidelines into a standard operating procedure (SOP), cotargeting a secondary outcome improvement of more accurately identifying those at risk of CES, thus reducing unnecessary MRIs for those that did not meet those guidelines and (2) the extension of MRI operational hours.The new SOP was implemented across three plan-do-study-act cycles, but MRI operational hours were not extended. The primary outcome of reduction in time from ED presentation to MRI was not achieved (5.9 to 5.7 hours). Secondary aim improvements include a reduction of unnecessary MRIs (38% to 18%), CES MRI scans/day (0.5/day to 0.4/day), time to analgesia (5.3 to 4.2 hours) and incorrect referrals to the General Practitioner-led Medway on Call Care service (9% to 0%).Suggestions for further improvements within district general hospitals include a 24-hour emergency MRI service and a standardised CES MRI request form.
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.