ArticleCureus2026
Improving the Documentation of Clinical Frailty and Resuscitation Status on a Psychiatric Older Adult Ward: A Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Older adults admitted to psychiatric inpatient wards frequently have significant physical health comorbidities, placing them at elevated risk of deterioration and death. Despite national guidance, documentation of clinical frailty assessments and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in this setting remains inconsistent. This project was therefore implemented to improve the documentation of resuscitation decisions and frailty assessments on The Oaks, which is a 20-bedded acute psychiatric admissions ward for adults over 65 years at Chase Farm Hospital, North London NHS Foundation Trust. Method A quality improvement project (QIP) was conducted across four phases between August 2024 and April 2025. Baseline data collection (Phase 1) examined 20 current inpatients for documentation of frailty assessment using the Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (RCFS) and DNACPR status in the electronic patient record (RiO). Following multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion (Phase 2), a standardised pathway was implemented which included routine frailty assessment on admission, MDT safety huddle discussion, patient and family information provision (Phase 3, including a bespoke CPR/DNAR information leaflet), and completion of DNACPR forms at care planning meetings. Re-evaluation (Phase 4) examined notes for all patients admitted over a one-month period (21 January to 21 February 2025). Results Following implementation of the intervention, DNACPR form completion increased from 5% to 30% (absolute increase: 25 percentage points; Fisher's exact test: p = 0.095). Documentation of DNACPR discussions increased from 15% to 90% (absolute increase: 75 percentage points; Fisher's exact test: p < 0.001), representing a sixfold relative increase. Where forms were not completed, reasons were clearly documented. Of the two project objectives, DNACPR documentation was measured as the primary re-evaluation outcome. Frailty documentation was not formally re-evaluated; however, this will be assessed in future QI cycles to accurately reflect the study findings. Conclusion This QIP demonstrates that a structured, MDT-driven pathway can produce short-term feasibility and a substantial improvement in DNACPR discussion documentation on a single older adult psychiatric ward. The pathway is low cost and has been adopted as standard practice, with ongoing monitoring planned. Further cycles targeting frailty scoring completion and DNACPR form rates are planned.
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.