Dataset Information

Risk for short-term undesirable outcomes in older emergency department users: Results of the ER2 observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The "Emergency Room Evaluation and Recommendations" (ER2) is a clinical tool designed to determine prognosis for the short-term Emergency Department (ED) undesirable outcomes including long length of stay (LOS) in ED and in hospital, as well as the likelihood of hospital admission during an index ED visit. It is also designed to guide appropriate and timely tailor-made geriatric interventions. This study aimed to examine whether ER2 assessment part was: 1) usable by ED healthcare workers (e.g. nurses) and 2) scoring system associated with long LOS in ED and in hospital, as well as hospital admission in older ED users on stretchers.

Methods

Based on an observational, prospective and longitudinal cohort study 1,800 participants visiting the ED of the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) were recruited between September and December 2017. ER2 assessment determined three risk-levels (i.e., low, medium and high) for short-term ED undesirable outcomes. The rate of ER2 digital form completed, the time to fill ER2 items and obtain ER2 risk-levels, the LOS in ED and in hospital, and hospital admission were used as outcomes.

Results

ER2 was usable by ED nurses in charge of older ED users. High-risk group was associated with both increased ED stay (coefficient of regression β = 3.81 with P≤0.001) and hospital stay (coefficient of regression β = 4.60 with P = 0.002) as well as with hospital admission (HR = 1.32 with P≤0.001) when low ER2 risk level was used as referent level. Kaplan-Meier distributions showed that the three risk groups of participants differed significantly (P = 0.001). Those with high-risk level (P≤0.001) were discharged later from hospital to a non-hospital location compared to those with low risk. There was no significant difference between those classified in low-risk and in medium-risk groups (P = 0.985) and those in medium and high-risk groups (P = 0.096).

Conclusion

The ER2 assessment part is usable in daily practice of ED care and its risk stratifications may be used to predict adverse outcomes including prolonged LOS in ED and in hospital as well as hospital admission.

Trial registration

NCT03964311.

SUBMITTER: Launay CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8357090 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: While Canadian ED physicians discharge most syncope patients with no specific further follow-up, approximately 5% will suffer serious outcomes after ED discharge. The goal of this study is to prospectively identify risk factors and to derive a clinical decision tool to accurately predict those at risk for serious outcomes after ED discharge within 30 days. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a prospective cohort study at 6 Canadian EDs to include adults with syncope and exclude patients with loss of consciousness>5 minutes, mental status changes from baseline, obvious witnessed seizure, or head trauma prior to syncope. Emergency physicians will collect standardized clinical variables including historical features, physical findings, and results of immediately available tests (blood, ECG, and ED cardiac monitoring) prior to ED discharge/hospital admission. A second emergency physician will evaluate approximately 10% of study patients for interobserver agreement calculation of predictor variables. The primary outcome will be a composite serious outcome occurring within 30 days of ED discharge and includes three distinct categories: serious adverse events (death, arrhythmia); identification of serious underlying disease (structural heart disease, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, severe pulmonary hypertension, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage, myocardial infarction); or procedures to treat the cause of syncope. The secondary outcome will be any of the above serious outcomes either suspected or those occurring in the ED. A blinded Adjudication Committee will confirm all serious outcomes. Univariate analysis will be performed to compare the predictor variables in patients with and without primary outcome. Variables with p-values <0.2 and kappa values ? 0.60 will be selected for stepwise logistic regression to identify the risk factors and to develop the clinical decision tool. We will enroll 5,000 patients (with 125 positive for primary outcome) for robust identification of risk factors and clinical decision tool development. DISCUSSION: Once successfully developed, this tool will accurately risk-stratify adult syncope patients; however, validation and implementation will still be required. This program of research should lead to standardized care of syncope patients, and improve patient safety.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are pressured environment where patients with supportive and palliative care needs may not be identified. We aimed to test the predictive ability of the CriSTAL (Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care) checklist to flag patients at risk of death within 3 months who may benefit from timely end-of-life discussions.MethodsProspective cohorts of >65-year-old patients admitted for at least one night via EDs in five Australian hospitals and one Irish hospital. Purpose-trained nurses and medical students screened for frailty using two instruments concurrently and completed the other risk factors on the CriSTAL tool at admission. Postdischarge telephone follow-up was used to determine survival status. Logistic regression and bootstrapping techniques were used to test the predictive accuracy of CriSTAL for death within 90 days of admission as primary outcome. Predictability of in-hospital death was the secondary outcome.ResultsA total of 1,182 patients, with median age 76 to 80 years (IRE-AUS), were included. The deceased had significantly higher mean CriSTAL with Australian mean of 8.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.7-8.6) versus 5.7 (95% CI = 5.1-6.2) and Irish mean of 7.7 (95% CI = 6.9-8.5) versus 5.7 (95% CI = 5.1-6.2). The model with Fried frailty score was optimal for the derivation (Australian) cohort but prediction with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was also good (areas under the receiver-operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.825 and 0.81, respectively). Values for the validation (Irish) cohort were AUROC = 0.70 with Fried and 0.77 using CFS. A minimum of five of 29 variables were sufficient for accurate prediction, and a cut point of 7+ or 6+ depending on the cohort was strongly indicative of risk of death. The most significant independent predictor of short-term death in both cohorts was frailty, carrying a twofold risk of death. CriSTAL's accuracy for in-hospital death prediction was also good (AUROC = 0.795 and 0.81 in Australia and Ireland, respectively), with high specificity and negative predictive values.ConclusionsThe modified CriSTAL tool (with CFS instead of Fried's frailty instrument) had good discriminant power to improve certainty of short-term mortality prediction in both health systems. The predictive ability of models is anticipated to help clinicians gain confidence in initiating earlier end-of-life discussions. The practicalities of embedding screening for risk of death in routine practice warrant further investigation.