Dataset Information

Clinical decision-making in older adults following emergency admission to hospital. Derivation and validation of a risk stratification score: OPERA.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives of the study

Demographic changes alongside medical advances have resulted in older adults accounting for an increasing proportion of emergency hospital admissions. Current measures of illness severity, limited to physiological parameters, have shortcomings in this cohort, partly due to patient complexity. This study aimed to derive and validate a risk score for acutely unwell older adults which may enhance risk stratification and support clinical decision-making.

Methods

Data was collected from emergency admissions in patients ≥65 years from two UK general hospitals (April 2017- April 2018). Variables underwent regression analysis for in-hospital mortality and independent predictors were used to create a risk score. Performance was assessed on external validation. Secondary outcomes included seven-day mortality and extended hospital stay.

Results

Derivation (n = 8,974) and validation (n = 8,391) cohorts were analysed. The model included the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), clinical frailty scale (CFS), acute kidney injury, age, sex, and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool. For mortality, area under the curve for the model was 0.79 (95% CI 0.78-0.80), superior to NEWS2 0.65 (0.62-0.67) and CFS 0.76 (0.74-0.77) (P<0.0001). Risk groups predicted prolonged hospital stay: the highest risk group had an odds ratio of 9.7 (5.8-16.1) to stay >30 days.

Conclusions

Our simple validated model (Older Persons' Emergency Risk Assessment [OPERA] score) predicts in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay and could be easily integrated into electronic hospital systems, enabling automatic digital generation of risk stratification within hours of admission. Future studies may validate the OPERA score in external populations and consider an impact analysis.

SUBMITTER: Arjan K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7971558 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and externally validate a risk algorithm (QAdmissions) to estimate the risk of emergency hospital admission for patients aged 18-100 years in primary care.DesignProspective open cohort study using routinely collected data from general practice linked to hospital episode data during the 2-year study period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011.Setting405 general practices in England contributing to the national QResearch database to develop the algorithm. Two validation cohorts to validate the algorithm (1) 202 different QResearch practices and (2) 343 practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research DataLink (CPRD). All general practices had data linked to hospital episode statistics at the individual patient level.ParticipantsWe studied 2 849 381 patients aged 18-100 years in the derivation cohort with over 4.6 million person-years of follow-up. 265 573 of these patients had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. For the QResearch validation cohort, we identified 1 340 622 patients aged 18-100 years with over 2.2 million person-years of follow-up. Of these patients, 132 723 had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. The CPRD cohort included 2 475 360 patients aged 18-100 years with over 3.8 million person-years of follow-up. 234 204 of these patients had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. We excluded patients without a valid NHS number and a valid Townsend score.EndpointFirst (ie, incident) emergency admission to hospital in the next 2 years as recorded on the linked hospital episodes records.Risk factorsCandidate variables recorded on the general practitioner computer system including (1) demographic variables (age, sex, strategic health authority, Townsend deprivation score, ethnicity); (2) lifestyle variables (smoking, alcohol intake); (3) chronic diseases; (4) prescribed medication; (5) clinical values (body mass index, systolic blood pressure); (6) laboratory test results (haemoglobin, platelets, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ratio of total serum cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, liver function tests). We also included the number of emergency admissions in the preceding year based on information recorded on the linked hospital episodes records.ResultsThe final QAdmissions algorithm incorporated 30 variables. When applied to the QResearch validation cohort, it explained 41% of the variation in women and 43% of that in men. The D statistic for QAdmissions was 1.7 in women and 1.8 in men. The receiver operating curve statistic was 0.78 for men and 0.77 for women. QAdmissions had good performance on all measures of discrimination and calibration. The positive predictive value for emergency admissions for the top tenth of patients at highest risk was 42% and the sensitivity was 39%. The results for the CPRD validation cohort were similar.ConclusionsThe QAdmissions model provided a valid measure of absolute risk of emergency admission to hospital in the general population as shown by its performance in a separate validation cohort. Further research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using these algorithms in primary care.

Project description:ObjectivesTo devise an assessment tool to aid discharge and admission decision-making in relation to children and young people in hospital urgent and emergency care facilities, and thereby improve the quality of care that patients receive, using a clinical prediction modelling approach.DesignObservational cohort study with internal and external validation of a predictive tool.SettingTwo general emergency departments (EDs) and an urgent care centre in the North of England.ParticipantsThe eligibility criteria were children and young people 0-16 years of age who attended one of the three hospital sites within one National Health Service (NHS) organisation. Children were excluded if they opted out of the study, were brought to the ED following their death in the community or arrived in cardiac arrest when the heart rate and respiratory rate would be unmeasurable.Main outcome measuresAdmission or discharge. A participant was defined as being admitted to hospital if they left the ED to enter the hospital for further assessment, (including being admitted to an observation and assessment unit or hospital ward), either on first presentation or with the same complaint within 7 days. Those who were not admitted were defined as having been discharged.ResultsThe study collected data on 36 365 participants. 15 328 participants were included in the final analysis cohort (21 045 observations) and 17 710 participants were included in the validation cohort (23 262 observations). There were 14 variables entered into the regression analysis. Of the 13 that remained in the final model, 10 were present in all 500 bootstraps. The resulting Paediatric Admission Guidance in the Emergency Department (PAGE) score demonstrated good internal validity. The C-index (area under the ROC) was 0.779 (95% CI 0.772 to 0.786).ConclusionsFor units without the immediate availability of paediatricians the PAGE score can assist staff to determine risk of admission. Cut-off values will need to be adjusted to local circumstance.Study protocolThe study protocol has been published in an open access journal: Riaz et al Refining and testing the diagnostic accuracy of an assessment tool (Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust-Paediatric Observation Priority Score) to predict admission and discharge of children and young people who attend an ED: protocol for an observational study. BMC Pediatr 18, 303 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1268-7.Trial registration numberThe protocol has been published and the study registered (NIHR RfPB Grant: PB-PG-0815-20034; ClinicalTrials.gov:213469).

Project description:BackgroundThere are approximately 60,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in the United Kingdom (UK) each year. Within the UK there are well-established clinical practice guidelines that define when resuscitation should be commenced in OHCA, and when resuscitation should cease. Background literature indicates that decision-making in the commencement and cessation of resuscitation efforts in OHCA is complex, and not comprehensively understood. No relevant research from the UK has been published to date and this research study seeks to explore the influences on UK Emergency Medical Service (EMS) provider decision-making when commencing and ceasing resuscitation attempts in OHCA. The aim of this research to explore the influences on UK Emergency Medical Services provider decision-making when commencing and ceasing resuscitation attempts in OHCA.MethodsFour focus groups were convened with 16 clinically active EMS providers. Four case vignettes were discussed to explore decision-making within the focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse transcripts.ResultsThis research found that there are three stages in the decision-making process when EMS providers consider whether to commence or cease resuscitation attempts in OHCA. These stages are: the call; arrival on scene; the protocol. Influential factors present at each of the three stages can lead to different decisions and variability in practice. These influences are: factual information available to the EMS provider; structural factors such as protocol, guidance and research; cultural beliefs and values; interpersonal factors; risk factors; personal values and beliefs.ConclusionsAn improved understanding of the circumstantial, individual and interpersonal factors that mediate the decision-making process in clinical practice could inform the development of more effective clinical guidelines, education and clinical decision support in OHCA. These changes have the potential to lead to greater consistency. and EMS provider confidence, with the potential for improved patient outcome from OHCA.

Project description:BackgroundIdentification of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospital admission or at high-risk of in-hospital mortality is essential to guide patient triage and to provide timely treatment for higher risk hospitalized patients.MethodsA retrospective multi-centre (8 hospital) cohort at Beaumont Health, Michigan, USA, reporting on COVID-19 patients diagnosed between 1 March and 1 April 2020 was used for score validation. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score was automatically computed by the EHR. Multivariate logistic regression models were built to predict hospital admission and in-hospital mortality using individual variables constituting the score. Validation was performed using both discrimination and calibration.ResultsCompared to Green scores, Yellow Scores (OR: 5.72) and Red Scores (OR: 19.1) had significantly higher odds of admission (both p < .0001). Similarly, Yellow Scores (OR: 4.73) and Red Scores (OR: 13.3) had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality than Green Scores (both p < .0001). The cross-validated C-Statistics for the external validation cohort showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score predicts the need for hospital admission and in-hospital mortality patients with COVID-19. Key points: Can an electronic health record generated risk score predict the risk of hospital admission and in-hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? In both validation cohorts of 2,025 and 1,290 COVID-19, the cross-validated C-Statistics showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)), respectively. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score may help predict the need for hospital admission if a patient contracts SARS-CoV-2 infection and in-hospital mortality for a hospitalized patient with COVID-19.