Prospective Validation of a Checklist to Predict Short-term Death in Older Patients After Emergency Department Admission in Australia and Ireland.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Australia
Checklist
/ standards
Emergency Service, Hospital
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Frailty
/ diagnosis
Hospital Mortality
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Ireland
Logistic Models
Male
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
ROC Curve
Risk Factors
Triage
/ methods
Journal
Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
ISSN: 1553-2712
Titre abrégé: Acad Emerg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9418450
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
05
08
2018
revised:
03
11
2018
accepted:
07
11
2018
pubmed:
15
11
2018
medline:
11
4
2020
entrez:
15
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Emergency 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. Prospective 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. A 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. The 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Emergency 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.
METHODS
Prospective 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.
RESULTS
A 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30428145
doi: 10.1111/acem.13664
pmc: PMC6619350
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
610-620Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
ID : 1054146
Pays : International
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM).
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Jun;41(6):1029-36
pubmed: 25792208
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014 Sep;4(3):263-70
pubmed: 24780536
Eur Geriatr Med. 2018;9(6):891-901
pubmed: 30574216
Neth J Med. 2016 Oct;74(8):342-352
pubmed: 27762216
QJM. 2006 Nov;99(11):771-81
pubmed: 17046859
Int Psychogeriatr. 2011 Feb;23(1):31-43
pubmed: 20653988
Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Oct;75:147-153
pubmed: 28818571
JAMA. 2012 Jan 11;307(2):182-92
pubmed: 22235089
Open Access Emerg Med. 2015 Sep 04;7:45-54
pubmed: 27147890
BMJ. 2005 Apr 30;330(7498):1007-11
pubmed: 15860828
J Intensive Care Soc. 2019 Aug;20(3):231-236
pubmed: 31447916
Anesthesiology. 2010 Nov;113(5):1026-37
pubmed: 20966661
CMAJ. 2005 Aug 30;173(5):489-95
pubmed: 16129869
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 May - Jun;76:169-174
pubmed: 29524917
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jan;22(1):1-21
pubmed: 25565487
Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jun;26(6):610-620
pubmed: 30428145
BMJ. 2017 Jan 26;356:j370
pubmed: 28126848
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2015 Mar;5(1):78-90
pubmed: 25613983
Age Ageing. 2017 Mar 1;46(2):179-186
pubmed: 27989992
J Palliat Med. 2012 Apr;15(4):392-5
pubmed: 22468769
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56
pubmed: 11253156
Resuscitation. 2016 Dec;109:76-80
pubmed: 27769903