Dataset Information

The effect of geriatric comanagement (GC) in geriatric trauma patients treated in a level 1 trauma setting: A comparison of data before and after the implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Improvements in life expectancy imply that an increase of geriatric trauma patients occurs. These patients require special attention due to their multiple comorbidity issues. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the implementation of geriatric comanagement (GC) on the allocation and clinical outcome of geriatric trauma patients.

Methods

This observational cohort study aims to compare the demographic development and the clinical outcome in geriatric trauma patients (aged 70 years and older) before and after implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center (GC). Geriatric trauma patients admitted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 were stratified to group pre-GC and admissions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 to Group post-GC. We excluded patients requiring end-of-life treatment and those who died within 24 h or due to severe traumatic brain injury. Outcome parameters included demographic changes, medical complexity (measured by American Society of Anaesthesiology Score (ASA) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)), in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalization.

Results

This study includes 626 patients in Group pre-GC (mean age 80.3 ± 6.7 years) and 841 patients in Group post-GC (mean age 81.1 ± 7.3 years). Group pre-GC included 244 (39.0%) males, group post-GC included 361 (42.9%) males. The mean CCI was 4.7 (± 1.8) points in pre-GC and 5.1 (± 2.0) points in post-GC (p <0.001). In Group pre-GC, 100 patients (16.0%) were stratified as ASA 1 compared with 47 patients (5.6%) in Group post-GC (p <0.001). Group pre-GC had significantly less patients stratified as ASA 3 or higher (n = 235, 37.5%) compared with Group post-GC (n = 389, 46.3%, p <0.001). Length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly from 10.4 (± 20.3) days in Group pre-GC to 7.9 (±22.9) days in Group post-GC (p = 0.011). The 30-day mortality rate was comparable amongst these groups (pre-GC 8.8% vs. post-GC 8.9%).

Conclusion

This study appears to support the implementation of a geriatric trauma center, as certain improvements in the patient care were found: Despite a higher CCI and a higher number of patients with higher ASA classifications, Hospital LOS, complication rates and mortality did were not increased after implementation of the CG. The increase in the case numbers supports the fact that a higher degree of specialization leads to a response by admitting physicians, as it exceeded the expectable trend of demographic ageing. We feel that a larger data base, hopefully in a multi center set up should be undertaken to verify these results.

SUBMITTER: Halvachizadeh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7799827 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of geriatric comanagement (GC) in geriatric trauma patients treated in a level 1 trauma setting: A comparison of data before and after the implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center.

Halvachizadeh Sascha S Gröbli Lea L Berk Till T Jensen Kai Oliver KO Hierholzer Christian C Bischoff-Ferrari Heike A HA Pfeifer Roman R Pape Hans-Christoph HC

PloS one 20210111 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Improvements in life expectancy imply that an increase of geriatric trauma patients occurs. These patients require special attention due to their multiple comorbidity issues. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the implementation of geriatric comanagement (GC) on the allocation and clinical outcome of geriatric trauma patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This observational cohort study aims to compare the demographic development and the clinical outcome in geriatric trauma ...[more]

PMID: 33428650

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlder trauma-injury patients had improved recovery after we implemented routine geriatric consultation for patients aged 65 years and older admitted to the trauma service of a Level I academic trauma center. The intervention aimed to improve quality of geriatric care. However, the specific care processes that improved are unknown.Study designWe conducted a prospective observation comparing medical care after (December 2007 to November 2009) vs before (December 2006 to November 2007) implementation of the geriatric consult-based intervention. To measure quality of care (QOC), we used 33 previously validated care-process quality indicators (QIs) from the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) study, measured by review of medical records for 76 geriatric consult (GC) vs 71 control group patients. As prespecified subgroup analyses, we aggregated QIs by type: geriatric (eg, delirium screening) vs nongeriatric condition-based care (eg, thrombosis prophylaxis) and compared QI scores by type of care. Last, we aggregated QI scores into overall, geriatric, and nongeriatric QOC scores for each patient (number of QIs passed/number of QIs eligible), and compared patient-level QOC for the GC vs control group, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity, and injury severity.ResultsSixty-three percent of the GC patients vs 11% of the control group patients received a geriatric consultation. We evaluated 2,505 QIs overall (1,664 geriatric type and 841 nongeriatric QIs). In general, fewer geriatric-type QIs were passed than nongeriatric QIs (71% vs 81%; p < 0.001). We provided better overall QOC to the GC (77%) than control group patients (73%; p < 0.05). However, the difference was not statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (p = 0.08). We improved geriatric QOC for the GC (74%) compared with the control group (68%; p < 0.01), a difference that was significant after multivariable adjustment (p = 0.01).ConclusionsGeriatricians and surgeons can collaboratively improve geriatric QOC for older trauma patients.

Project description:ImportanceCollaboration between geriatricians and surgeons in the perioperative treatment of older patients has been associated with improved outcomes in several nononcologic specialties. Similar associations may be possible among older patients with cancer.ObjectiveTo investigate the associations of geriatric comanagement of care for older patients undergoing cancer-related surgical treatment with 90-day postoperative mortality, rate of adverse surgical events, and postoperative use of inpatient supportive care services.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study assessed outcomes of patients who received geriatric comanaged care vs those who did not using multivariable logistic regression analysis, with 90-day mortality as the outcome and geriatric comanagement of care as the main variable, with adjustment for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiology score, Memorial Sloan Kettering Frailty Index score, preoperative albumin level, operative time, and estimated blood loss. A similar model was used to assess the association of geriatric comanagement with adverse surgical events, defined as any major complication, readmission, or emergency department visit within 30 days. Patients aged 75 years and older who underwent an elective surgical procedure with a hospital stay of at least 1 day at a single tertiary-care cancer center between February 2015 and February 2018 were included. Data were analyzed from January to July 2019.ExposuresPostoperative care comanaged by the geriatrics service and surgical service (geriatric comanagement group) vs by the surgical service only (surgical service group).Main outcomes and measures90-day mortality, adverse surgical events, and use of supportive care services.ResultsOf 1892 patients included, 1020 (53.9%) received geriatric comanagement of care; these patients, compared with those who received care managed by the surgery service only, were older (mean [SD] age, 81 [4] years vs 80 [4] years; P < .001), had longer operative time (mean [SD], 203 [146] minutes vs 138 [112] minutes; P < .001), and longer length of stay (median [interquartile range], 5 [3-8] days vs 4 [2-7] days; P < .001). There were no differences in the proportions of men (488 [47.8%] men vs 450 [51.6%] men; P = .11). Adverse surgical events were not significantly different between groups (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.73-1.18]; P = .54). However, the adjusted probability of death within 90 days after surgical treatment was 4.3% for the geriatric comanagement group vs 8.9% for the surgical service group (difference, 4.6% [95% CI, 2.3%-6.9%]; P < .001). Additionally, compared with patients who received postoperative care management from the surgery service only, a higher proportion of patients in the geriatric comanagement group received inpatient supportive care services, including physical therapy (555 patients [63.6%] vs 820 patients [80.4%]; P < .001), occupational therapy (220 patients [25.2%] vs 385 patients [37.7%]; P < .001), speech and swallow rehabilitation (42 patients [4.8%] vs 86 patients [8.4%]; P = .002), and nutrition services (637 patients [73.1%] vs 803 patients [78.7%]; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that geriatric comanagement was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality among older patients with cancer. These findings suggest that such patients may benefit from geriatric comanagement, which could improve their ability to survive adverse postoperative events.

Project description:BackgroundThis article describes factors related to adoption, implementation, and effectiveness of the Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center intervention, which uses telehealth for trauma specialist consultations for seriously injured children. We aimed at (1) measuring RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) implementation outcomes and (2) identifying PRISM (Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model) contextual factors that influenced the implementation outcomes.MethodsThis interim implementation evaluation of our telehealth trial used a convergent mixed-methods design. The quantitative component was a cross-sectional analysis of pediatric trauma encounters using electronic health records. The qualitative component was a thematic analysis of written and verbal feedback from providers and family advisory board meetings. We compared the quantitative and qualitative data by synthesizing them in a joint display table, organized by RE-AIM dimensions. We categorized these key findings into the PRISM domains.ResultsDuring the first 10 months of this trial, 246 subjects were randomized, with 177 assigned to standard care and 69 assigned to telehealth. Four referring sites transitioned from standard care into their intervention period. PRISM contextual factors that influenced RE-AIM implementation outcomes included the following findings: Providers struggle to remember, interpret, and navigate intervention workflows; providers have preconceived ideas about the intervention purpose; the intervention mitigates parents' anxieties about the transfer process.DiscussionThis study revealed implementation challenges that influence the overall success of this telehealth trial. Early identification of these challenges allows our team the opportunity to address them now to optimize the intervention reach, adoption, and implementation. This early action will ultimately enhance the success of our trial and the ability of our intervention to achieve broad impact.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although the majority of older patients admitted to a cardiology unit present with at least one geriatric syndrome, guidelines on managing heart disease often do not consider the complex needs of frail older patients. Geriatric co-management has demonstrated potential to improve functional status, and reduce complications and length of stay, but evidence on the effectiveness in cardiology patients is lacking. This study aims to determine if geriatric co-management is superior to usual care in preventing functional decline, complications, mortality, readmission rates, reducing length of stay and improving quality of life in older patients admitted for acute heart disease or for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and to identify determinants of success for geriatric co-management in this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This prospective quasi-experimental before-and-after study will be performed on two cardiology units of the University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium in patients aged ?75 years. In the precohort (n=227), usual care will be documented. A multitude of implementation strategies will be applied to allow for successful implementation of the model. Patients in the after cohort (n=227) will undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment within 24?hours of admission to stratify them into one of three groups based on their baseline risk for developing functional decline: low-risk patients receive proactive consultation, high-risk patients will be co-managed by the geriatric nurse to prevent complications and patients with acute geriatric problems will receive an additional medication review and co-management by the geriatrician. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee UZ Leuven/KU Leuven (S58296). Written voluntary (proxy-)informed consent will be obtained from all participants at the start of the study. Dissemination of results will be through articles in scientific and professional journals both in English and Dutch and by conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02890927.

Dataset Information

The effect of geriatric comanagement (GC) in geriatric trauma patients treated in a level 1 trauma setting: A comparison of data before and after the implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The effect of geriatric comanagement (GC) in geriatric trauma patients treated in a level 1 trauma setting: A comparison of data before and after the implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets