Dataset Information

The role of illness acuity on the association between frailty and mortality in emergency department patients referred to internal medicine.

ABSTRACT:

Background

we investigated whether two frailty tools predicted mortality among emergency department (ED) patients referred to internal medicine and how the level of illness acuity influenced any association between frailty and mortality.

Methods

two tools, embedded in a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), were the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and a 57-item deficit accumulation frailty index (FI-CGA). Illness acuity was assessed using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). We examined all-cause 30-day and 6-month mortality and time to death.

Results

in 808 ED patients (mean age ± SD 80.8 ± 8.8, 54.4% female), the mean FI-CGA score was 0.44 ± 0.14, and the CFS was 5.6 ± 1.6. A minority (307; 38%) were classified as having high acuity (CTAS: 1-2). The 30-day mortality rate was 17%; this increased to 34% at 6 months. Compared to well patients with low acuity, the risk of 30-day mortality was 22.5 times (95% CI: 9.35-62.12) higher for severely frail patients with high acuity; 53% of people with very severe frailty (CFS = 8) and high acuity died within 30 days. When acuity was low, the risk for 30-day mortality was significantly higher only among those with very high levels of frailty (CFS 7-9, FI-CGA > 0.5). When acuity was high, even lower levels of frailty (CFS 5-6, FI-CGA 0.4-0.5) were associated with higher 30-day mortality.

Conclusions

across levels of frailty, higher acuity increased mortality risk. When acuity was low, the risk was significant only when the degree of frailty was high, whereas when acuity was high, even lower levels of frailty were associated with greater mortality risk.

SUBMITTER: Pulok MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7583513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo map the physician approach when determining disposition for a patient who presents without the level of definite medical acuity that would generally warrant hospitalisation.Data sources/study settingSince 2018, our US academic county hospital/trauma centre has maintained a database in which hospitalists ('triage physicians') document the rationale and outcomes of requests for admission to the acute care medical ward during each shift.Study designNarrative text from the database was analysed using a grounded theory approach to identify major themes and subthemes, and a conceptual model of the admission decision-making process was constructed.ParticipantsDatabase entries were included (n=300) if the admission call originated from the emergency department and if the triage physician characterised the request as potentially inappropriate because the patient did not have definite medical acuity.ResultsAdmission decision making occurs in three main phases: evaluation of unmet needs, assessment of risk and re-evaluation. Importantly, admission decision making is not solely based on medical acuity or clinical algorithms, and patients without a definite medical need for admission are hospitalised when physicians believe a potential issue exists if discharged. In this way, factors such as homelessness, substance use disorder, frailty, etc, contribute to admission because they raise concern about patient safety and/or barriers to appropriate treatment. Physician decision making can be altered by activities such as care coordination, advocacy by the patient or surrogate, interactions with other physicians or a change in clinical trajectory.ConclusionsThe decision to admit ultimately remains a clinical determination constructed between physician and patient. Physicians use a holistic process that incorporates broad consideration of the patient's medical and social needs with emphasis on risk assessment; thus, any analysis of hospitalisation trends or efforts to impact such should seek to understand this individual-level decision making.

Project description:Uninsured and insured but out-of-network emergency department (ED) patients are often billed hospital chargemaster prices, which exceed amounts typically paid by insurers.To examine the variation in excess charges for services provided by emergency medicine and internal medicine physicians.Retrospective analysis was conducted of professional fee payment claims made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for all services provided to Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries in calendar year 2013. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to July 31, 2016.Markup ratios for ED and internal medicine professional services, defined as the charges submitted by the hospital divided by the Medicare allowable amount.Our analysis included 12?337 emergency medicine physicians from 2707 hospitals and 57?607 internal medicine physicians from 3669 hospitals in all 50 states. Services provided by emergency medicine physicians had an overall markup ratio of 4.4 (340% excess charges), which was greater than the markup ratio of 2.1 (110% excess charges) for all services performed by internal medicine physicians. Markup ratios for all ED services ranged by hospital from 1.0 to 12.6 (median, 4.2; interquartile range [IQR], 3.3-5.8); markup ratios for all internal medicine services ranged by hospital from 1.0 to 14.1 (median, 2.0; IQR, 1.7-2.5). The median markup ratio by hospital for ED evaluation and management procedure codes varied between 4.0 and 5.0. Among the most common ED services, laceration repair had the highest median markup ratio (7.0); emergency medicine physician review of a head computed tomographic scan had the greatest interhospital variation (range, 1.6-27.7). Across hospitals, markups in the ED were often substantially higher than those in the internal medicine department for the same services. Higher ED markup ratios were associated with hospital for-profit ownership (median, 5.7; IQR, 4.0-7.1), a greater percentage of uninsured patients seen (median, 5.0; IQR, 3.5-6.7 for ?20% uninsured), and location (median, 5.3; IQR, 3.8-6.8 for the southeastern United States).Across hospitals, there is wide variation in excess charges on ED services, which are often priced higher than internal medicine services. Our results inform policy efforts to protect uninsured and out-of-network patients from highly variable pricing.

Project description:BackgroundCanadian pediatric emergency department visits are increasing, with a disproportionate increase in low-acuity visits locally (33% of volume in 2008-09, 41% in 2011-12). We sought to understand: 1) presentation patterns and resource implications; 2) parents' perceptions and motivations; and 3) alternate health care options considered prior to presenting with low-acuity problems.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study at our tertiary pediatric emergency department serving two provinces to explore differences between patients with and without a primary care provider. During four, 2-week study periods over 1 year, parents of low-acuity visits received an anonymous survey. Presentation times, interventions, diagnoses and dispositions were captured on a data collection form linked to the survey by study number.ResultsParents completed 2,443 surveys (74.1% response rate), with survey-data collection form pairs available for 2,146 visits. Overall, 89.7% of respondents had a primary care provider; 68% were family physicians. Surprisingly, 40% of visits occurred during weekday office hours and 27.3% occurred within 4 hours of symptom onset; 67.5% of those early presenters were for injuries. Few parents sought care from their primary care provider (25%), health information line (20.7%), or urgent care clinic (18.5%); 36% reported that they believed their child's problem required the emergency department. Forty-five percent required only a history, physical exam and reassurance; only 11% required an intervention not available in an office setting. Patients without a primary care provider were significantly more likely to present during weekday office hours (p = 0.003), have longer symptom duration (p<0.001), and not know of other options (p = 0.001).ConclusionsMany parents seek pediatric emergency department care for low-acuity problems despite their child having a primary care provider. Ensuring timely access to these providers may help reduce pediatric emergency department overuse. Educational initiatives should inform parents about low-acuity problems and where appropriate care can/should be accessed.

Project description:Importance:Emergency departments (EDs) have the potential to play a pivotal role in suicide risk detection and prevention, yet little is known about the profile of risk of suicide after ED visits in the United States. Objectives:To examine 1-year incidence of suicide and other mortality among ED patients who presented with nonfatal deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation, or any other chief concern, and to examine sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with suicide mortality risk. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study included statewide, all-payer, longitudinally linked ED patient records and mortality data from all California residents who presented to a California-licensed ED at least 1 time from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, with deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation but not self-harm, or neither (a 5% random sample). Age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-adjusted standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for suicide and other manners or causes of death were determined for each patient group using statewide mortality data. Data were analyzed from January 10 to July 18, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Suicide and other manners or causes of death were ascertained using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes. Suicide rate and all mortality rates were measured per 100?000 person-years. Results:Among 648?646 individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.8 [20.6] years; 350?687 [54.1%] women) who visited an ED in California from 2009 to 2011, the rates of suicide deaths per 100?000 person-years in the year after index ED presentation were 693.4 deaths among 83?507 individuals presenting with deliberate self-harm (SMR, 56.8; 95% CI, 52.1-61.4), 384.5 deaths among 67?379 individuals presenting with suicidal ideation but not self-harm (SMR, 31.4; 95% CI, 27.5-35.2), and 23.4 deaths among 497?760 reference patients (SMR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.3). Compared with the demographically matched general population, the rates of nonsuicide external-cause mortality were also increased among patients with self-harm (SMR, 14.2; 95% CI, 12.9-15.5), patients with suicidal ideation (SMR, 11.8; 95% CI, 10.6-13.0), and reference patients (SMR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3). In all 3 groups, the rates of suicide mortality per 100?000 person-years were higher among men (deliberate self-harm: 1011.1 deaths; suicidal ideation: 539.8 deaths; reference: 36.6 deaths), people 65 years or older (deliberate self-harm: 1919.5 deaths; suicidal ideation: 691.2 deaths; reference: 28.6 deaths), and non-Hispanic white patients (deliberate self-harm: 914.1 deaths; suicidal ideation: 511.6 deaths; reference: 33.8 deaths) than among their respective referent groups. Other sociodemographic factors and clinical diagnoses were associated with striking differences in suicide rates, but these patterns were heterogeneous across patient groups. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that ED patients with deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation are associated with substantially increased risk of suicide and other mortality during the year after ED presentation. The process of planning for ED discharge may present opportunities to help ensure safe transitions to continuing outpatient mental health care and to consider broader risk for unintentional injury and other causes of premature mortality.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize and validate the landscape of algorithms that use International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes to identify low-acuity emergency department (ED) visits.Data sourcesPublicly available ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS).Study designWe systematically searched for studies that specify algorithms consisting of ICD codes that identify preventable or low-acuity ED visits. We classified ED visits in NHAMCS according to these algorithms and compared agreements using the Jaccard index. We then evaluated the performance of each algorithm using positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity, with the reference group specified using low-acuity composite (LAC) criteria consisting of both triage and clinical components. In sensitivity analyses, we repeated our primary analysis using only triage or only clinical criteria for reference.Data collectionWe used the 2011-2017 NHAMCS data, totaling 163,576 observations before survey weighting and after dropping observations missing a primary diagnosis. We translated ICD-9 codes (years 2011-2015) to ICD-10 using a standard crosswalk.Principal findingsWe identified 15 papers with an original list of ICD codes used to identify preventable or low-acuity ED presentations. These papers were published between 1992 and 2020, cited an average of 310 (SD 360) times, and included 968 (SD 1175) codes. Pairwise Jaccard similarity indices (0 = no overlap, 1 = perfect congruence) ranged from 0.01 to 0.82, with mean 0.20 (SD 0.13). When validated against the LAC reference group, the algorithms had an average PPV of 0.308 (95% CI [0.253, 0.364]) and sensitivity of 0.183 (95% CI [0.111, 0.256]). Overall, 2.1% of visits identified as low acuity by the algorithms died prehospital or in the ED, or needed surgery, critical care, or cardiac catheterization.ConclusionsExisting algorithms that identify low-acuity ED visits lack congruence and are imperfect predictors of visit acuity.