ArticleBMC surgery2026
Assessing stakeholder's perception and utilisation of frailty assessment in a vascular surgery setting - a national mixed methods study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFrailty is common among patients undergoing vascular surgery and is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes. However, the use of frailty assessment tools in vascular services varies considerably. This study explored how vascular healthcare professionals (HCPs) understand frailty and perceive the role of frailty assessment to inform future service development.
methodsA national mixed-methods study was conducted. A questionnaire captured clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and current frailty assessment practices. Semi-structured interviews with consultant and trainee vascular surgeons and other allied healthcare professionals explored experiences in depth. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively; qualitative data were examined using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings were integrated during interpretation.
resultsSurvey responses (n = 60) showed that frailty is widely recognised as clinically important, yet its assessment is inconsistent, with most respondents (73%) relying on subjective judgement rather than formal tools. Interviews (n = 20) identified four overarching themes: (i) conceptualising frailty through a vascular lens; identifying (ii) drivers for change in approach to frailty; the (iii) assessment of frailty by the vascular team was varied but important; and HCPs identified potential risks and benefits to (iv) operationalising frailty for vascular services. Clinicians perceived value in standardising frailty assessment to support early identification, guide optimisation, enhance shared decision-making, and create a common language across specialties. Participants described benefits of collaborative models involving geriatricians, including improved medical management, streamlined discharge planning, and better continuity across hospital-community interfaces. However, barriers included limited time, staffing constraints, uncertainty about tool selection, concerns about service ownership and potential deskilling. Most clinicians felt a multidisciplinary frailty-informed model would ultimately improve outcomes and patient experience if adequately resourced.
conclusionVascular HCPs consider frailty assessment clinically meaningful and potentially transformative, but current practice is inconsistent. Participants perceived strong value in standardising frailty assessment to improve education, awareness and a shared understanding which would promote cross-disciplinary working. Improved health outcomes, patient counselling/education and job role satisfaction were implicated in this movement. However, optimal tool selection and its impact on clinical outcomes remain uncertain and require prospective evaluation before widespread adoption.
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.