Dataset Information

Validation of a Crisis Standards of Care Model for Prioritization of Limited Resources During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis in an Urban, Safety-Net, Academic Medical Center.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare resources even in wealthy nations, necessitating rationing of limited resources without previously established crisis standards of care protocols. In Massachusetts, triage guidelines were designed based on acute illness and chronic life-limiting conditions. In this study, we sought to retrospectively validate this protocol to cohorts of critically ill patients from our hospital.

Design

We applied our hospital-adopted guidelines, which defined severe and major chronic conditions as those associated with a greater than 50% likelihood of 1- and 5-year mortality, respectively, to a critically ill patient population. We investigated mortality for the same intervals.

Setting

An urban safety-net hospital ICU.

Patients

All adults hospitalized during April of 2015 and April 2019 identified through a clinical database search.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Of 365 admitted patients, 15.89% had one or more defined chronic life-limiting conditions. These patients had higher 1-year (46.55% vs 13.68%; p < 0.01) and 5-year (50.00% vs 17.22%; p < 0.01) mortality rates than those without underlying conditions. Irrespective of classification of disease severity, patients with metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disease had greater than 50% 1-year mortality, whereas patients with chronic lung disease and cirrhosis had less than 50% 1-year mortality. Observed 1- and 5-year mortality for cirrhosis, heart failure, and metastatic cancer were more variable when subdivided into severe and major categories.

Conclusions

Patients with major and severe chronic medical conditions overall had 46.55% and 50.00% mortality at 1 and 5 years, respectively. However, mortality varied between conditions. Our findings appear to support a crisis standards protocol which focuses on acute illness severity and only considers underlying conditions carrying a greater than 50% predicted likelihood of 1-year mortality. Modifications to the chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and cirrhosis criteria should be refined if they are to be included in future models.

SUBMITTER: Nadjarian A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8439631 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To establish the feasibility of empirically testing crisis standards of care guidelines.DesignRetrospective single-center study.SettingICUs at a large academic medical center in the United States.SubjectsAdult, critically ill patients admitted to ICU, with 27 patients admitted for acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and 37 patients admitted for diagnoses other than coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsReview of electronic health record.Measurements and main resultsMany U.S. states released crisis standards of care guidelines with algorithms to allocate scarce healthcare resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We compared state guidelines that represent different approaches to incorporating disease severity and comorbidities: New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Following each algorithm, we calculated priority scores at the time of ICU admission for a cohort of patients with primary diagnoses of coronavirus disease 2019 and diseases other than coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 64). We assessed discrimination of 28-day mortality by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We simulated real-time decision-making by applying the triage algorithms to groups of two, five, or 10 patients. For prediction of 28-day mortality by priority scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56, 0.49, 0.53, 0.66, and 0.69 for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. For groups of five patients, the percentage of decisions made without deferring to a lottery were 1%, 57%, 80%, 88%, and 95% for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. The percentage of decisions made without lottery was higher in the subcohort without coronavirus disease 2019, compared with the subcohort with coronavirus disease 2019.ConclusionsInclusion of comorbidities does not consistently improve an algorithm's performance in predicting 28-day mortality. Crisis standards of care algorithms result in a substantial percentage of tied priority scores. Crisis standards of care algorithms operate differently in cohorts with and without coronavirus disease 2019. This proof-of-principle study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of empirical testing of crisis standards of care guidelines to understand whether they meet their goals.

Project description:BackgroundLarge scale implementation of new strategies and healthcare delivery standards in academic medical centers (AMCs) requires training of healthcare workforce at different stages of their medical career. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model for healthcare delivery involves adoption by all members of the healthcare workforce, including seasoned professionals and trainees. Though widely known, the PCMH model has been implemented sporadically at large AMCs and methods to implement the model across healthcare workforce have not been well-documented.MethodsTo meet all PCMH standards and achieve sustainable level 3 recognition, the authors implemented in 2014-2015 a multi-pronged approach that capitalized on existing educational infrastructure among faculty, residents, and medical students. Within 18 months, the authors applied new interdisciplinary practices and policies, redesigned residency training in continuity practices and extensively modified medical school curricula.ResultsThese innovative transformational education efforts addressed the six PCMH standards for faculty, residents, and undergraduate medical students. Faculty played a major role as system change agents and facilitators of learning. Residents learned to better understand patients' cultural needs, identify 'at-risk' patients, ensure continuity of care, and assess and improve quality of care. Medical students were exposed to PCMH core standards throughout their training via simulations, training in the community and with patients, and evaluation tasks. By implementing these changes across the healthcare workforce, the AMC achieved PCMH status in a short time, changed practice culture and improved care for patients and the community. Since then, the AMC has been able to maintain PCMH recognition annually with minimal effort.ConclusionsSuccessful strategies that capitalize on existing strengths in infrastructure complemented by innovative educational offerings and inter-professional partnerships can be adapted by other organizations pursuing similar transformation efforts. This widespread transformation across the healthcare workforce facilitate a deep-rooted change that enabled our academic medical center to sustain PCMH recognition.

Project description:BackgroundPatient navigation, a patient-centered intervention to promote comprehensive health care, is an emerging innovation in obstetrics to optimize postpartum care. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of a novel postpartum patient navigation program at an urban academic medical center.MethodsThis mixed-methods study analyzed the implementation of a postpartum patient navigation program within an ongoing randomized control trial. This study analyzed three navigators' logs of interactions with 50 patients, care team members, and community organizations throughout patients' first year postpartum. We categorized and quantified interactions by topic addressed, care team member interacted with, and communication mode used. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with each navigator every three months (5 interviews per navigator), emphasizing navigation experiences, relationships with patients and care teams, integration in the care team, and healthcare system gaps. Interview data were analyzed using the constant comparative method to identify themes using the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsAnalysis of navigator logs revealed a high patient need level, especially in the first 3 months postpartum. CFIR-guided analysis of intervention characteristics revealed positive perceptions of navigation's utility due to its adaptability. Navigation's complexity, however, posed an early obstacle to implementation that diminished over time. Outer setting analysis indicated navigators addressed patient needs through interactions with multiple systems. Despite clinicians' initial unfamiliarity with navigation, inner setting analysis suggested ongoing communication and electronic medical record use facilitated integration into the care team. Regarding individual and process characteristics, findings emphasized how navigator self-efficacy and confidence increased with experience (individual) and was facilitated by comprehensive training and reflection (process). Overall, barriers to implementation included unfamiliarity, varied patient engagement, and innovation complexity. Facilitators included high patient need, communication with outside organizations, medical record usage, navigator characteristics (self-efficacy, communication skills, and personal growth), a comprehensive training period, consistent reflection, high relative advantage, and high adaptability to patient need.ConclusionPatient navigation is a promising innovation to improve postpartum care coordination and support care team efforts. The successful implementation of navigation in this study indicates that, if shown to improve patient outcomes, obstetric navigation could be a component of patient-centered postpartum care.

Project description:Despite increasing use, proton therapy (PT) remains a relatively limited resource. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and demographic differences in PT use for prostate cancer compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at a single institution.All patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (N = 633) who underwent definitive radiation therapy between 2010 and 2015 were divided into PT (n = 508) and IMRT (n = 125) comparison groups and compared using ?2 and independent sample t tests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the associations between PT use and demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics.The PT and IMRT cohorts varied by age, race, poverty, distance, treatment year, and treating physician. Patients who underwent IMRT were more likely to be older (mean age, 66 vs. 68 years), black (51% vs. 75%), and living in poverty or close to the facility (mean distance between residence and facility, 90 vs. 21 miles; P < .05). Prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and International Index of Erectile Function were significantly higher in the IMRT cohort (P < .05), but insurance type, risk group, tumor stage, Gleason score, and patient-reported urinary and bowel scores did not differ significantly (P > .05). Patients who underwent PT were more likely to receive hypofractionated therapy and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .01). On multivariable analysis, black (odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.57) and other race (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90); distance (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.24); treatment years 2011 (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.23-10.6), 2012 (OR, 8.27; 95% CI, 3.43-19.9), and 2014 (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 1.94-10.2) relative to 2010; and a single treating physician (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81) relative to the reference physician with the highest rate of use were associated with PT use, whereas clinical factors such as prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, International Index of Erectile Function, and androgen deprivation therapy were not.Sociodemographic disparities exist in PT use for prostate cancer at an urban academic institution. Further investigation of potential barriers to access is warranted to ensure equitable distribution across all demographic groups.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is the first publicly reported nationwide survey to evaluate and compare hospitals. Increasing patient satisfaction is an important goal as it aims to achieve a more effective and efficient healthcare delivery system. In this study, we develop and apply an integrative, data-driven approach to identify clinical risk factors that associate with patient satisfaction outcomes. METHODS:We included 1,771 unique adult patients who completed the HCAHPS survey and were discharged from the inpatient Medicine service from 2010 to 2012. We collected 266 clinical features including patient demographics, lab measurements, medications, disease categories, and procedures. We developed and applied a data-driven approach to identify risk factors that associate with patient satisfaction outcomes. FINDINGS:We identify 102 significant risk factors associating with 18 surveyed questions. The most significantly recurrent clinical risk factors were: self-evaluation of health, education level, Asian, White, treatment in BMT oncology division, being prescribed a new medication. Patients who were prescribed pregabalin were less satisfied particularly in relation to communication with nurses and pain management. Explanation of medication usage was associated with communication with nurses (q = 0.001); however, explanation of medication side effects was associated with communication with doctors (q = 0.003). Overall hospital rating was associated with hospital environment, communication with doctors, and communication about medicines. However, patient likelihood to recommend hospital was associated with hospital environment, communication about medicines, pain management, and communication with nurse. CONCLUSIONS:Our study identified a number of putatively novel clinical risk factors for patient satisfaction that suggest new opportunities to better understand and manage patient satisfaction. Hospitals can use a data-driven approach to identify clinical risk factors for poor patient satisfaction to support development of specific interventions to improve patients' experience of care.