Suppr超能文献

急诊医生评估死亡率与老年住院患者 1 个月实际死亡率的关联。

Association of Emergency Clinicians' Assessment of Mortality Risk With Actual 1-Month Mortality Among Older Adults Admitted to the Hospital.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1911139. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11139.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

The accuracy of mortality assessment by emergency clinicians is unknown and may affect subsequent medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of the question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" (known as the surprise question) asked of emergency clinicians with actual 1-month mortality among undifferentiated older adults who visited the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study at a single academic medical center in Portland, Maine, included consecutive patients 65 years or older who received care in the ED and were subsequently admitted to the hospital from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015. Data analyses were conducted from January 2018 to March 2019.

EXPOSURES

Treating emergency clinicians were required to answer the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" in the electronic medical record when placing a bed request for all patients who were being admitted to the hospital.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month, assessed from the National Death Index. The secondary outcomes included accuracies of responses by both emergency clinicians and admitting internal medicine clinicians to the surprise question in identifying older patients with high 6-month and 12-month mortality.

RESULTS

The full cohort included 10 737 older adults (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [8.8] years; 5532 [52%] women; 10 157 [94.6%] white) in 16 223 visits treated in the ED and admitted to the hospital. There were 5132 patients (31.6%) with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or more. Mortality rates were 8.3% at 1 month, 17.2% at 6 months, and 22.5% at 12 months. Emergency clinicians stated that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next month for 2104 patients (19.6%). In multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, race, admission diagnosis, and comorbid conditions, the odds of death at 1 month were higher in patients for whom clinicians answered that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month compared with patients for whom clinicians answered that they would be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month (odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.2-2.7]; P < .001). However, the diagnostic test characteristics of the surprise question were poor (sensitivity, 20%; specificity, 93%; positive predictive value, 43%; negative predictive value, 82%; accuracy, 78%; area under the receiver operating curve of the multivariable model, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.72-0.74; P < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that asking the surprise question of emergency clinicians may be a valuable tool to identify older patients in the ED with a high risk of 1-month mortality. The effect of implementing the surprise question to improve population-level health care for older adults in the ED who are seriously ill remains to be seen.

摘要

重要性

急诊临床医生评估死亡率的准确性尚不清楚,这可能会影响随后的医疗决策。

目的

确定向急诊临床医生提出的问题“如果您的患者在下一个月内死亡,您会感到惊讶吗?”(称为“惊讶问题”)与在急诊就诊的未分化老年患者的实际 1 个月死亡率之间的关系。

设计、地点和参与者:这项在缅因州波特兰市的一家学术医疗中心进行的前瞻性队列研究纳入了从 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2015 年 12 月 31 日连续就诊于急诊科并随后住院的年龄在 65 岁及以上的患者。数据分析于 2018 年 1 月至 2019 年 3 月进行。

暴露

当为所有即将住院的患者提出床位请求时,急诊临床医生被要求在电子病历中回答“惊讶问题”,“如果您的患者在下一个月内死亡,您会感到惊讶吗?”

主要结果和测量

主要结局是从国家死亡索引评估的 1 个月死亡率。次要结局包括急诊临床医生和收治内科医生对“惊讶问题”回答的准确性,以识别出 6 个月和 12 个月死亡率较高的老年患者。

结果

全队列包括 10737 名年龄在 75.9(8.8)岁的老年患者(平均[标准差]年龄);5532 名(52%)女性;16223 次就诊于急诊科并住院的患者。有 10157 名(94.6%)患者的 Charlson 合并症指数评分为 2 或更高。1 个月时的死亡率为 8.3%,6 个月时为 17.2%,12 个月时为 22.5%。2104 名患者(19.6%)的临床医生表示,如果患者在下一个月死亡,他们不会感到惊讶。在多变量分析中,控制年龄、性别、种族、入院诊断和合并症后,与临床医生回答他们会感到惊讶的患者相比,临床医生回答他们不会感到惊讶的患者在 1 个月时死亡的几率更高(比值比,2.4[95%CI,2.2-2.7];P < .001)。然而,惊讶问题的诊断测试特征较差(灵敏度,20%;特异性,93%;阳性预测值,43%;阴性预测值,82%;准确性,78%;多变量模型的受试者工作特征曲线下面积,0.73[95%CI,0.72-0.74;P < .001])。

结论和相关性

本研究发现,询问急诊临床医生惊讶问题可能是一种有用的工具,可以识别急诊科中具有高 1 个月死亡率风险的老年患者。实施惊讶问题以改善急诊科重病老年患者的人群健康护理的效果仍有待观察。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5e6/6745053/329e9479cd6f/jamanetwopen-2-e1911139-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验