3132 Quality improvement project: clinical frailty assessment during clerking for the older patient

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
H Purle, A Barrowman, S Joseph, A Eapen
{"title":"3132 Quality improvement project: clinical frailty assessment during clerking for the older patient","authors":"H Purle, A Barrowman, S Joseph, A Eapen","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afaf133.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) framework sets a 10% minimum and an ideal goal of 30% of acutely presenting patients over the age of 65 to receive frailty assessment scores. Early recognition of frailty helps mitigate risks such as deconditioning. This project aims to assess and improve the adoption of this standard in medical emergency admissions of a Birmingham district general hospital by working with medical admissions teams and frailty services and observing for associated outcome measures. Method PDSA methodology was used. Data was retrospectively collected for patients aged 65 and above from the electronic patient records (EPR) over a week’s interval from the acute medical take. Collected data included prevalence of CFS scoring and social history, escalation discussions and mortality. Interventions were delivered via an educational presentation to resident doctors and displayed posters in key areas. The data was examined for improvements in CFS prevalence and its relationship with onwards referral, escalation discussions or mortality. Results Pre-intervention only 3.31% (8/242 patients) had a recorded CFS score. Post-intervention, 19.10% (34/178) patients had a CFS score documented. Post-intervention, 82.35% of those with CFS scores were referred to the frailty therapy service, as opposed to 17.36% of those without CFS scoring. Escalation discussions were had with 41.17% of those with CFS scoring and 29.17% of patients without. Mortality was 5.88% in the CFS scored patients and 9.72% in the patients with no CFS score. Conclusion After focused interventions, the CFS prevalence was above the 10% minimum requirement and closer to the 30% goal set by the CQUIN 05. Patients with a CFS score saw higher rates of onwards referrals to older person services, and higher rates of escalation discussions. In forwards application, CFS could be discussed in induction, incorporated into IT clerking systems.","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"273 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf133.028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction The Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) framework sets a 10% minimum and an ideal goal of 30% of acutely presenting patients over the age of 65 to receive frailty assessment scores. Early recognition of frailty helps mitigate risks such as deconditioning. This project aims to assess and improve the adoption of this standard in medical emergency admissions of a Birmingham district general hospital by working with medical admissions teams and frailty services and observing for associated outcome measures. Method PDSA methodology was used. Data was retrospectively collected for patients aged 65 and above from the electronic patient records (EPR) over a week’s interval from the acute medical take. Collected data included prevalence of CFS scoring and social history, escalation discussions and mortality. Interventions were delivered via an educational presentation to resident doctors and displayed posters in key areas. The data was examined for improvements in CFS prevalence and its relationship with onwards referral, escalation discussions or mortality. Results Pre-intervention only 3.31% (8/242 patients) had a recorded CFS score. Post-intervention, 19.10% (34/178) patients had a CFS score documented. Post-intervention, 82.35% of those with CFS scores were referred to the frailty therapy service, as opposed to 17.36% of those without CFS scoring. Escalation discussions were had with 41.17% of those with CFS scoring and 29.17% of patients without. Mortality was 5.88% in the CFS scored patients and 9.72% in the patients with no CFS score. Conclusion After focused interventions, the CFS prevalence was above the 10% minimum requirement and closer to the 30% goal set by the CQUIN 05. Patients with a CFS score saw higher rates of onwards referrals to older person services, and higher rates of escalation discussions. In forwards application, CFS could be discussed in induction, incorporated into IT clerking systems.
3132质量提升项目:老年患者护理期间的临床虚弱评估
质量和创新委托(CQUIN)框架设定了10%的最低标准和30%的65岁以上急性患者接受虚弱评估评分的理想目标。及早发现身体虚弱有助于减轻疾病恶化等风险。该项目旨在通过与医疗入院小组和虚弱服务部门合作,并观察相关的结果措施,评估和改进伯明翰地区综合医院急诊住院中采用这一标准的情况。方法采用PDSA方法。回顾性收集了65岁及以上患者的电子病历(EPR),从急性医疗就诊间隔一周。收集的数据包括CFS评分、社会病史、升级讨论和死亡率。干预措施通过向住院医生进行教育演示和在关键地区张贴海报的方式进行。对数据进行了检查,以了解CFS患病率的改善及其与后续转诊、升级讨论或死亡率的关系。结果干预前仅3.31%(8/242)患者有CFS评分记录。干预后,19.10%(34/178)患者有CFS评分记录。干预后,82.35%有CFS评分的患者转介到虚弱治疗服务,而没有CFS评分的患者为17.36%。有CFS评分的患者有41.17%进行了升级讨论,无CFS评分的患者有29.17%。有CFS评分者死亡率为5.88%,无CFS评分者死亡率为9.72%。结论经过重点干预后,CFS患病率高于10%的最低要求,更接近CQUIN 2005设定的30%的目标。有慢性疲劳综合症评分的患者有更高的转介到老年人服务的比率,以及更高的升级讨论率。在未来的应用中,CFS可以在归纳中进行讨论,并纳入IT职员系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Age and ageing
Age and ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
6.00%
发文量
796
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Age and Ageing is an international journal publishing refereed original articles and commissioned reviews on geriatric medicine and gerontology. Its range includes research on ageing and clinical, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of later life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信