Piers Ruth, De Brauwer Isabelle, Baeyens Hilde, Velghe Anja, Hens Lineke, Deschepper Ellen, Henrard Séverine, De Pauw Michel, Van Den Noortgate Nele, De Saint-Hubert Marie
Department of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
Department of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Ghent University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent, Belgium.
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021 May 31;14(e2). doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003042.
An increasing number of older patients are hospitalised. Prognostic uncertainty causes hospital doctors to be reluctant to make the switch from cure to care. The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) has not been validated for prognostication in an older hospitalised population.
To validate SPICT as a prognostic tool for risk of dying within one year in older hospitalised patients.
Prospective multicentre study. Premorbid SPICT and 1-year survival and survival time were assessed.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients 75 years and older admitted at acute geriatric (n=209) and cardiology units (CUs) (n=249) of four hospitals.
In total, 59.3% (124/209) was SPICT identified on acute geriatric vs 40.6% (101/249) on CUs (p<0.001). SPICT-identified patients in CUs reported more functional needs and more symptoms compared to SPICT non-identified patients. On acute geriatric units, SPICT-identified patients reported more functional needs only.The HR of dying was 2.9 (95% CI 1.1 to 8.7) in SPICT-identified versus non-identified after adjustment for hospital strata, age, gender and did not differ between units. One-year mortality was 24% and 22%, respectively, on acute geriatric versus CUs (p=0.488). Pooled average sensitivity, specificity and partial area under the curve differed significantly between acute geriatric and CUs (p<0.001), respectively, 0.82 (95%CI 0.66 to 0.91), 0.49 (95%CI 0.40 to 0.58) and 0.82 in geriatric vs 0.69 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.87), 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.77) and 0.65 in CUs.
SPICT may be used as a tool to identify older hospitalised patients at risk of dying within 1 year and who may benefit from a palliative care approach including advance care planning. The prognostic accuracy of SPICT is better in older patients admitted at the acute geriatric versus the CU.
住院的老年患者数量日益增加。预后的不确定性导致医院医生不愿从治疗转向护理。支持性和姑息性护理指标工具(SPICT)尚未在老年住院患者中进行预后验证。
验证SPICT作为老年住院患者一年内死亡风险的预后工具。
前瞻性多中心研究。评估病前SPICT、1年生存率和生存时间。
地点/参与者:四家医院的急性老年科(n = 209)和心内科(CUs)(n = 249)收治的75岁及以上患者。
急性老年科中,共59.3%(124/209)被SPICT识别,而在心内科为40.6%(101/249)(p<0.001)。与未被SPICT识别的患者相比,心内科中被SPICT识别的患者报告有更多功能需求和更多症状。在急性老年科,被SPICT识别的患者仅报告有更多功能需求。在对医院分层、年龄、性别进行调整后,被SPICT识别的患者与未被识别的患者相比,死亡风险比(HR)为2.9(95%置信区间1.1至8.7),各科室之间无差异。急性老年科和心内科的1年死亡率分别为24%和22%(p = 0.488)。急性老年科和心内科之间,合并平均敏感性、特异性和曲线下部分面积差异显著(p<0.001),急性老年科分别为0.82(95%置信区间0.66至0.91)、0.49(95%置信区间0.40至0.58)和0.82,心内科为0.69(95%置信区间0.42至0.87)、0.66(95%置信区间0.55至0.77)和0.65。
SPICT可作为一种工具,用于识别有1年内死亡风险且可能从包括预立医疗计划在内的姑息性护理方法中获益的老年住院患者。SPICT在急性老年科收治的老年患者中的预后准确性优于心内科。