Observational studyJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Implementing an Acute Frailty Service in the Emergency Department: A Mixed-Methods Service Evaluation of Feasibility, Patient Outcomes and Experience.
Observational study in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults living with frailty present frequently to emergency departments (EDs), yet standard care is poorly adapted to their complex needs. National policy in England recommends Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and frailty-targeted pathways, but evidence on their impact in EDs is limited.
methodsWe conducted a single-centre mixed-methods service evaluation using an observational comparative design to evaluate a new frailty service in a large urban ED (September 2023-March 2024), based on routinely collected data (Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) dataset) and a patient experience survey.
resultsAmong 5,717 eligible ED presentations (clinical frailty scale (CFS) ≥ 6), 464 (8.1%) received the acute frailty service (AFS) review and 5,253 (91.9%) usual care. AFS patients were older (mean 85.9 (SD 7.7) vs 81.0 (SD 12.3) years) and more often female (64.2% vs. 55.3%). Overall LOS was shorter for AFS patients (49.1 ± 48.5 h ≈ 2.0 days vs 106.4 ± 95.5 h ≈ 4.4 days; p < 0.001), driven primarily by admitted patients. Admission avoidance was achieved in 23% of AFS cases. Odds of hospital admission were lower (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.087-0.231), while 30-day reattendance did not differ significantly (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.51-1.36). No in-hospital deaths occurred among AFS-reviewed patients. Patient feedback (n = 24) showed high satisfaction with dignity, communication, and overall care. A simple cost-offset estimate suggested two admissions avoided per clinician shift, approximating local bed-day cost savings of £1,000 per day.
conclusionsImplementing a dedicated frailty service in the ED is feasible and may improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Embedding specialist geriatric input early in the emergency pathway supports safe, efficient, and person-centred care for older adults. These findings offer transferable insights for acute and emergency care systems seeking to strengthen frailty management at the front door. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides real-world evidence on implementing an acute frailty service within the emergency department and describes its reach, integration, and associated early outcomes for older adults living with frailty. The findings contribute to international efforts to optimise frailty management at the front door of acute hospitals, offering practical insights for integrated emergency and geriatric care.
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.