Dataset Information

DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a forensic mental health hospital.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The criteria for deciding who should be admitted first from a waiting list to a forensic secure hospital are not necessarily the same as those for assessing need. Criteria were drafted qualitatively and tested in a prospective 'real life' observational study over a 6-month period.

Methods

A researcher rated all those presented at the weekly referrals meeting using the DUNDRUM-1 triage security scale and the DUNDRUM-2 triage urgency scale. The key outcome measure was whether or not the individual was admitted.

Results

Inter-rater reliability and internal consistency for the DUNDRUM-2 were acceptable. The DUNDRUM-1 triage security score and the DUNDRUM-2 triage urgency score correlated r = 0.663. At the time of admission, after a mean of 23.9 (SD35.9) days on the waiting list, those admitted had higher scores on the DUNDRUM-2 triage urgency scale than those not admitted, with no significant difference between locations (remand or sentenced prisoners, less secure hospitals) at the time of admission. Those admitted also had higher DUNDRUM-1 triage security scores. At baseline the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for a combined score was the best predictor of admission while at the time of admission the DUNDRUM-2 triage urgency score had the largest AUC (0.912, 95% CI 0.838 to 0.986).

Conclusions

The triage urgency items and scale add predictive power to the decision to admit. This is particularly true in maintaining equitability between those referred from different locations.

SUBMITTER: Flynn G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3224499 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a forensic mental health hospital.

Flynn Grainne G O'Neill Conor C Kennedy Harry G HG

BMC research notes 20110703

<h4>Background</h4>The criteria for deciding who should be admitted first from a waiting list to a forensic secure hospital are not necessarily the same as those for assessing need. Criteria were drafted qualitatively and tested in a prospective 'real life' observational study over a 6-month period.<h4>Methods</h4>A researcher rated all those presented at the weekly referrals meeting using the DUNDRUM-1 triage security scale and the DUNDRUM-2 triage urgency scale. The key outcome measure was whe ...[more]

PMID: 21722397

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAllocation of deceased donor kidneys is meant to follow a ranked match-run list of eligible candidates, but transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization have full discretion to decline offers for higher-priority candidates and accept them for lower-ranked candidates at their center.ObjectiveTo describe the practice and frequency of transplant centers placing deceased donor kidneys with candidates who are not the highest rank at their center according to the allocation algorithm.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used 2015 to 2019 organ offer data from US transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization, following candidates for transplant events from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were deceased kidney donors with a single match-run and at least 1 kidney transplanted locally and adult, first-time, kidney-only transplant candidates receiving at least 1 offer for a locally transplanted deceased donor kidney. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022 to March 28, 2023.ExposureDemographic and clinical characteristics of donors and recipients.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was kidney transplantation into the highest-priority candidate (defined as transplanted after zero declines for local candidates in the match-run) vs a lower-ranked candidate.ResultsThis study assessed 26 579 organ offers from 3136 donors (median [IQR] age, 38 [25-51] years; 2903 [62%] men) to 4668 recipients. Transplant centers skipped their highest-ranked candidate to place kidneys further down the match-run for 3169 kidneys (68%). These kidneys went to a median (IQR) of the fourth- (third- to eighth-) ranked candidate. Higher kidney donor profile index (KDPI; higher score indicates lower quality) kidneys were less likely to go to the highest-ranked candidate, with 24% of kidneys with KDPI of at least 85% going to the top-ranked candidate vs 44% of KDPI 0% to 20% kidneys. When comparing estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) scores between the skipped candidates and the ultimate recipients, kidneys were placed with recipients with both better and worse EPTS than the skipped candidates, across all KDPI risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of local kidney allocation at isolated transplant centers, we found that centers frequently skipped their highest-priority candidates to place kidneys further down the allocation prioritization list, often citing organ quality concerns but placing kidneys with recipients with both better and worse EPTS with nearly equal frequency. This occurred with limited transparency and highlights the opportunity to improve the matching and offer algorithm to improve allocation efficiency.

Project description:ImportanceWith continuing improvements in medical devices and more than a decade since the 2006 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation policy, it is pertinent to assess survival among patients on the heart transplantation waiting list, especially given the recently approved 2018 UNOS allocation policy.ObjectivesTo assess survival outcomes among patients on the heart transplant waiting list during the past 3 decades and to examine the association of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and the 2006 UNOS allocation policy with survival.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cross-sectional used the UNOS database to perform an analysis of 95 323 candidates wait-listed for heart transplantation between January 1, 1987, and December 29, 2017. Candidates for all types of combined transplants were excluded (n = 2087). Patients were followed up from the time of listing to death, transplantation, or removal from the list due to clinical improvement. Competing-risk, Kaplan-Meier, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used.Main outcomes and measuresThe analysis involved an unadjusted and adjusted survival analysis in which the primary outcome was death on the waiting list. Because of changing waiting list preferences and policies during the study period, the intrinsic risk of death for wait-listed candidates was assessed by individually analyzing, comparing, and adjusting for several candidate risk factors.ResultsIn total, 95 323 candidates (72 915 men [76.5%]; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [12.0] years) were studied. In the setting of changes in listing preferences, 1-year survival on the waiting list increased from 34.1% in 1987-1990 to 67.8% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.34%; 95% CI, 0.32%-0.36%; P < .001). The 1-year waiting list survival for candidates with VADs increased from 10.2% in 1996-2000 to 70.0% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.60%; 95% CI, 0.58%-0.62%; P < .001). Similarly, in the setting of changing mechanical circulatory support indications, the 1-year waiting list survival for patients without VADs increased from 53.9% in 1996-2000 to 66.5% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.14%; P < .001). In the decade prior to the 2006 UNOS allocation policy, the 1-year waiting list survival was 51.1%, while in the decade after it was 63.9% (difference in proportions, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.14%; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, each time period after 1987-1990 had a marked decrease in waiting list mortality.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found temporally associated increases in heart transplant waiting list survival for all patient groups (with or without VADs, UNOS status 1 and status 2 candidates, and candidates with poor functional status).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The assessment of those presenting to prison in-reach and court diversion services and those referred for admission to mental health services is a triage decision, allocating the patient to the appropriate level of therapeutic security. This is a critical clinical decision. We set out to improve on unstructured clinical judgement. We collated qualitative information and devised an 11 item structured professional judgment instrument for this purpose then tested for validity. METHODS:All those assessed following screening over a three month period at a busy remand committals prison (n = 246) were rated in a retrospective cohort design blind to outcome. Similarly, all those admitted to a mental health service from the same prison in-reach service over an overlapping two year period were rated blind to outcome (n = 100). RESULTS:The 11 item scale had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) and inter-rater reliability. The scale score did not correlate with the HCR-20 'historical' score. For the three month sample, the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) for those admitted to hospital was 0.893 (95% confidence interval 0.843 to 0.943). For the two year sample, AUC distinguished at each level between those admitted to open wards, low secure units or a medium/high secure service. Open wards v low secure units AUC = 0.805 (95% CI 0.680 to 0.930); low secure v medium/high secure AUC = 0.866, (95% CI 0.784 to 0.949). Item to outcome correlations were significant for all 11 items. CONCLUSIONS:The DUNDRUM-1 triage security scale and its items performed to criterion levels when tested against the real world outcome. This instrument can be used to ensure consistency in decision making when deciding who to admit to secure forensic hospitals. It can also be used to benchmark admission thresholds between services and jurisdictions. In this study we found some divergence between assessed need and actual placement. This provides fertile ground for future research as well as practical assistance in assessing unmet need, auditing case mix and planning care pathways.

Project description:IntroductionEmergency Department (ED)-based HIV counseling and testing (HCT) has had a significant impact on improving rates of HIV diagnosis and linkage to care. Unfortunately, expansion of this strategy to low- and middle-income countries has been limited. Successful implementation of ED-based HCT is dependent on patient and provider acceptance of the intervention, and their attitudes and pre-existing biases towards the disease. This study sought to develop validated survey instruments to assess attitudes towards ED-based HCT.MethodsThis cross-sectional study surveyed patients and providers in three EDs in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. A convenience sample of patients and providers in the ED were surveyed. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using questions on attitudes to HIV testing to develop validated survey instruments. An ANOVA test assessed variance in attitudes towards HCT based on demographic variables collected.ResultsA total of 104 patient and 132 provider surveys were completed. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 17- and 7-question attitudes survey for patients and providers, respectively. Overall, 92.3% of patients and 70.7% of providers supported ED-based HCT, however, both groups displayed only mildly positive attitudes. Questions representing 'confidentiality' and 'stigma around HIV testing' had the least positive influence on patients' overall attitudes. Questions representing 'comfort with HIV testing' had the least positive influence on providers' overall attitudes.ConclusionOur study demonstrated ED patients and providers are generally supportive of ED-based HCT. A validated survey instrument was able to provide a standardized approach to identify barriers to HCT implementation in an ED setting, across contexts. For successful implementation, behavioral interventions must focus on strengthening patient beliefs around confidentiality and the consent process, and providers' comfort levels with providing HIV testing services in the ED.

Project description:Under the current liver-transplantation policy, donor organs are offered to patients with the highest risk of death.Using data derived from all adult candidates for primary liver transplantation who were registered with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in 2005 and 2006, we developed and validated a multivariable survival model to predict mortality at 90 days after registration. The predictor variable was the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score with and without the addition of the serum sodium concentration. The MELD score (on a scale of 6 to 40, with higher values indicating more severe disease) is calculated on the basis of the serum bilirubin and creatinine concentrations and the international normalized ratio for the prothrombin time.In 2005, there were 6769 registrants, including 1781 who underwent liver transplantation and 422 who died within 90 days after registration on the waiting list. Both the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration were significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio for death, 1.21 per MELD point and 1.05 per 1-unit decrease in the serum sodium concentration for values between 125 and 140 mmol per liter; P<0.001 for both variables). Furthermore, a significant interaction was found between the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration, indicating that the effect of the serum sodium concentration was greater in patients with a low MELD score. When applied to the data from 2006, when 477 patients died within 3 months after registration on the waiting list, the combination of the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration was considerably higher than the MELD score alone in 32 patients who died (7%). Thus, assignment of priority according to the MELD score combined with the serum sodium concentration might have resulted in transplantation and prevented death.This population-wide study shows that the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration are important predictors of survival among candidates for liver transplantation.

Dataset Information

DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a forensic mental health hospital.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a forensic mental health hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets