Dataset Information

Which outcomes are most important to measure in patients with COVID-19 and how and when should these be measured? Development of an international standard set of outcomes measures for clinical use in patients with COVID-19: a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) COVID-19 Working Group.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives.

Design

A list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance.

Results

The outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors.

Conclusion

Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.

SUBMITTER: Seligman WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593274 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments measure health gains, including changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Previous studies have assessed the reliability and relationship of multiple HRQoL instruments in search of the optimal instrument for feasible measurement of PROs. Although the 15D instrument was shown to have the best sensitivity and construct validity among cardiac patients, it is unknown how well it captures relevant disease-specific information scores compared to instruments included in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the disease-specific PRO instruments and a generic HRQoL instrument capture disease related symptoms in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.MethodsHealth status and HRQoL were assessed with the instruments included in the ICHOM standard set: Seattle Angina Questionnaire short-form (SAQ-7), Rose Dyspnea Scale (RDS), two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and with the 15D HRQoL instrument at baseline and 1 year from the treatment in a university hospital setting. Spearman correlation and explanatory factor analysis were used to assess the relationship of baseline scores and 1-year change in scores of 297 patients.ResultsAt baseline, the overall 15D score and SAQ-physical limitation (SAQ-PL), 15D "breathing" and SAQ-PL, as well as "breathing" and RDS showed moderately strong correlations. The factor interpreted to reflect "Breathing-related physical activity", based on high loadings of "breathing", RDS, SAQ-PL, "mobility", "vitality", and "usual activities", explained 19.2% of the total variance. Correlations between 1-year changes in scores were fair. The factor of "Breathing-related physical activity", with significant loading of RDS, SAQ-PL, "breathing, "usual activities", "vitality\", "sexual activity", "mobility", and disease-specific quality of life explained 20.5% of the total variance in 1-year change in scores. The correlation of angina frequency measured by SAQ-7 and the 15D instrument was poor.ConclusionsThe 15D detects dyspnea and depression similarly to RDS and PHQ-2 but not angina similarly to the SAQ-7. This may call for supplementing the 15D instrument with a disease-specific instrument when studying CAD patients.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing recognition that health care providers need to focus attention, and be judged against, the impact they have on the health outcomes experienced by patients. The measurement of health outcomes as a routine part of clinical documentation is probably the only scalable way of collecting outcomes evidence, since secondary data collection is expensive and error-prone. However, there is uncertainty about whether routinely collected clinical data within electronic health record (EHR) systems includes the data most relevant to measuring and comparing outcomes and if those items are collected to a good enough data quality to be relied upon for outcomes assessment, since several studies have pointed out significant issues regarding EHR data availability and quality.ObjectiveIn this paper, we first describe a practical approach to data quality assessment of health outcomes, based on a literature review of existing frameworks for quality assessment of health data and multistakeholder consultation. Adopting this approach, we performed a pilot study on a subset of 21 International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) outcomes data items from patients with congestive heart failure.MethodsAll available registries compatible with the diagnosis of heart failure within an EHR data repository of a general hospital (142,345 visits and 12,503 patients) were extracted and mapped to the ICHOM format. We focused our pilot assessment on 5 commonly used data quality dimensions: completeness, correctness, consistency, uniqueness, and temporal stability.ResultsWe found high scores (>95%) for the consistency, completeness, and uniqueness dimensions. Temporal stability analyses showed some changes over time in the reported use of medication to treat heart failure, as well as in the recording of past medical conditions. Finally, the investigation of data correctness suggested several issues concerning the characterization of missing data values. Many of these issues appear to be introduced while mapping the IMASIS-2 relational database contents to the ICHOM format, as the latter requires a level of detail that is not explicitly available in the coded data of an EHR.ConclusionsOverall, results of this pilot study revealed good data quality for the subset of heart failure outcomes collected at the Hospital del Mar. Nevertheless, some important data errors were identified that were caused by fundamentally different data collection practices in routine clinical care versus research, for which the ICHOM standard set was originally developed. To truly examine to what extent hospitals today are able to routinely collect the evidence of their success in achieving good health outcomes, future research would benefit from performing more extensive data quality assessments, including all data items from the ICHOM standards set and across multiple hospitals.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and outcomes associated with hemorrhage, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and thrombosis (HECTOR) complications in ICU patients with COVID-19.DesignProspective, observational study.SettingTwo hundred twenty-nine ICUs across 32 countries.PatientsAdult patients (≥ 16 yr) admitted to participating ICUs for severe COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsHECTOR complications occurred in 1,732 of 11,969 study eligible patients (14%). Acute thrombosis occurred in 1,249 patients (10%), including 712 (57%) with pulmonary embolism, 413 (33%) with myocardial ischemia, 93 (7.4%) with deep vein thrombosis, and 49 (3.9%) with ischemic strokes. Hemorrhagic complications were reported in 579 patients (4.8%), including 276 (48%) with gastrointestinal hemorrhage, 83 (14%) with hemorrhagic stroke, 77 (13%) with pulmonary hemorrhage, and 68 (12%) with hemorrhage associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannula site. Disseminated intravascular coagulation occurred in 11 patients (0.09%). Univariate analysis showed that diabetes, cardiac and kidney diseases, and ECMO use were risk factors for HECTOR. Among survivors, ICU stay was longer (median days 19 vs 12; p < 0.001) for patients with versus without HECTOR, but the hazard of ICU mortality was similar (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.92-1.12; p = 0.784) overall, although this hazard was identified when non-ECMO patients were considered (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.25; p = 0.015). Hemorrhagic complications were associated with an increased hazard of ICU mortality compared to patients without HECTOR complications (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.45; p = 0.002), whereas thrombosis complications were associated with reduced hazard (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p = 0.03).ConclusionsHECTOR events are frequent complications of severe COVID-19 in ICU patients. Patients receiving ECMO are at particular risk of hemorrhagic complications. Hemorrhagic, but not thrombotic complications, are associated with increased ICU mortality.

Project description:BackgroundImproving access to healthcare for ethnic minorities is a public health priority in many countries, yet little is known about how to incorporate information on race, ethnicity, and related social determinants of health into large international studies. Most studies of differences in treatments and outcomes of COVID-19 associated with race and ethnicity are from single cities or countries.MethodsWe present the breadth of race and ethnicity reported for patients in the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, an international observational cohort study from 380 sites across 32 countries. Patients from the United States, Australia, and South Africa were the focus of an analysis of treatments and in-hospital mortality stratified by race and ethnicity. Inclusion criteria were admission to intensive care for acute COVID-19 between January 14th, 2020, and February 15, 2022. Measurements included demographics, comorbidities, disease severity scores, treatments for organ failure, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsSeven thousand three hundred ninety-four adults met the inclusion criteria. There was a wide variety of race and ethnicity designations. In the US, American Indian or Alaska Natives frequently received dialysis and mechanical ventilation and had the highest mortality. In Australia, organ failure scores were highest for Aboriginal/First Nations persons. The South Africa cohort ethnicities were predominantly Black African (50%) and Coloured* (28%). All patients in the South Africa cohort required mechanical ventilation. Mortality was highest for South Africa (68%), lowest for Australia (15%), and 30% in the US.ConclusionsDisease severity was higher for Indigenous ethnicity groups in the US and Australia than for other ethnicities. Race and ethnicity groups with longstanding healthcare disparities were found to have high acuity from COVID-19 and high mortality. Because there is no global system of race and ethnicity classification, researchers designing case report forms for international studies should consider including related information, such as socioeconomic status or migration background. *Note: "Coloured" is an official, contemporary government census category of South Africa and is a term of self-identification of race and ethnicity of many citizens of South Africa.