Clinicians’ Experiences of Implementing Clinical Frailty Scale Assessments in Lung Oncology Clinics: A Qualitative Interview Study

TL;DR

This study explores how clinicians use the Clinical Frailty Scale in lung cancer clinics and identifies barriers and benefits to implementing frailty assessments in cancer care.

Contribution

The study provides new insights into clinicians' experiences and practical recommendations for implementing frailty assessments in oncology.

Findings

Frailty assessments enhance patient-centered care and support clinical decision-making.

Barriers include time constraints and lack of training, while facilitators include clear guidance and cultural support.

The Clinical Frailty Scale helps differentiate patients with borderline performance status.

Abstract

Simple frailty assessments, such as the clinical frailty scale (CFS), could support treatment decision-making and care in cancer clinics, but they are not currently used routinely. This qualitative interview study explored clinicians’ experiences of using frailty assessments in lung cancer clinics to understand how they impact care, and the barriers and facilitators to their use. Four main themes were identified. ‘Assessing fitness and frailty’ explores the central role of performance status in assessing fitness and accessing cancer treatments, as well as its limitations and what frailty assessments add. ‘Scoring and interpreting CFS’ describes the ease and relative yield of CFS use, and its ability to differentiate between patients considered ‘borderline’ according to performance status, as well as the need to consider scoring in the wider clinical context. ‘Role of frailty and impacts of assessment’ highlights how frailty assessments can enhance patient-centred care and support, communication with patients, and clinical and shared decision-making, with the potential to streamline care and convey wider system-level benefits. ‘Barriers and facilitators to implementation’ describes factors that help or hinder the delivery of frailty assessments and frailty-informed care, with specific recommendations provided to support use in practice.

Background/Objectives: Simple frailty assessments, such as the clinical frailty scale (CFS), are prognostic for worse outcomes in older adults with cancer and could support treatment decision-making. This interview study aims to explore clinicians’ experiences of using simple frailty assessments in oncology, including the impacts on patient care and barriers and facilitators to successful implementation. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with clinicians at three UK sites that had implemented CFS screening in lung cancer clinics as part of a national pilot, to explore how frailty assessments are applied and are impacting care. Purposive sampling targeted a range of professionals involved in assessing frailty and making treatment decisions. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: Ten clinicians participated, and four main themes were identified. ‘Assessing fitness and frailty’ explores the central role of performance status (PS), as well as its limitations, and what frailty assessments add. ‘Scoring and interpreting CFS’ describes the ease and relative yield of CFS use, particularly for patients with ‘borderline’ PS scores (e.g., PS 1–2 or 2–3), and the importance of contextual interpretation. ‘Role of frailty and impacts of assessment’ highlights how frailty assessments can enhance patient-centered care and support, and clinical and shared decision-making, with potential for streamlined care and system-level benefits. ‘Barriers and facilitators to implementation’ are described, including time, culture, guidance, and training, with recommendations provided. Conclusions: Assessing frailty has wide-ranging potential benefits for patients, oncology teams, and the wider system, but barriers must be overcome. Specific recommendations are provided to support the routine implementation of frailty assessments, which is a key step towards the benefits of frailty-informed care being realised at scale.

Figures