ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving the detection and documentation of suspected cauda equina syndrome: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare but critical neurological emergency. Prompt diagnosis and accurate documentation are essential to avoid permanent neurological impairment. This quality improvement project aimed to improve the accuracy and completeness of neurological examination documentation for patients presenting with suspected CES.
methodsUsing three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, a digitally prompted documentation tool '#CES' was developed and implemented in the electronic patient record system. The tool was designed in alignment with the 2019 GIRFT Spine Report and 2023 GIRFT National CES Pathway. It included red flag symptoms and neurological assessment criteria from the ASIA classification. A teaching session on its use was delivered in January before the second data collection period (19 September 2024-20 October 2024), and it was later incorporated into resident doctor induction in December before the third data collection period (5 January 2025-5 February 2025).
resultsIn the initial cycle (May-August 2024), documentation was inconsistent, particularly for sensory (0%) and reflex (4.9%) examination. Following implementation and a teaching session (September 2024), documentation improved in the second cycle (September-October 2024): sensation (81.3%), reflexes (57.1%), though tone and motor documentation declined. In the third cycle (January-February 2025), full template use rose to 80% (from 25%) and documentation further improved: sensation (94.1%), motor (64.7%), reflexes (64.7%), tone (64.7%), vascular (58.8%).
conclusionsA CES-specific, digitally prompted template significantly improved documentation quality. Integration of GIRFT red flags, clinician codesign and repeated education enhanced uptake and accuracy. Further PDSA cycles will focus on sustainability, time-to-diagnosis metrics and addressing clinician workload concerns.
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.