• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用再入院风险评分联合意外问题识别可能从严重疾病对话中获益的住院患者。

Identification of Hospitalized Patients Who May Benefit from a Serious Illness Conversation Using the Readmission Risk Score Combined with the Surprise Question.

出版信息

Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024 Dec;50(12):842-848. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.003. Epub 2024 Aug 10.

DOI:10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.003
PMID:39304370
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Determining which patients benefit from a serious illness conversation (SIC) is challenging. The authors sought to determine whether Epic's Risk of Readmission Score (RRS), could be combined with a simple, validated, one-question mortality prognostic screen (the surprise question: Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next 12 months?) to identify hospitalized patients with SIC needs.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, the authors randomly selected encounters for patients ≥ 18 years of age to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 who had an RRS > 28%. Two adjudicators independently performed chart reviews for each encounter to answer the surprise question to create two distinct prognostic groups (yes vs. no). Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistically significant differences in standardized documentation of SICs between groups.

RESULTS

Out of 2,879 encounters, 202 patient encounters were randomly selected. Adjudicators answered "no" to the surprise question for 156 (77.2%) patients. Patients for whom adjudicators answered "no" were generally older with higher comorbidity and more often had standardized documentation of a SIC (14 [9.0%] vs. 0.[0.0%], p = 0.042) compared to patients for whom adjudicators answered "yes."

CONCLUSION

Approximately three quarters of patients with a high RRS were predicted to have a lifespan of less than a year. Although these patients were significantly more likely to have a SIC, rates of SICs were extremely low. Combining available electronic health record (EHR) data with a simple one-question screening tool may help identify hospitalized patients who require a SIC in quality improvement initiatives.

摘要

背景

确定哪些患者需要进行重病沟通(SIC)具有挑战性。作者试图确定 Epic 的再入院风险评分(RRS)是否可以与一个简单的、经过验证的、一个问题的死亡率预测筛选工具(意外问题:如果患者在未来 12 个月内死亡,您会感到惊讶吗?)相结合,以识别需要进行 SIC 的住院患者。

方法

在这项回顾性研究中,作者从 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 10 月随机选择了接受一般医学服务的年龄≥18 岁的患者的就诊记录,这些患者的 RRS >28%。两名裁判独立对每个就诊记录进行了图表审查,以回答意外问题,从而创建了两个不同的预后组(是与否)。Fisher 精确检验用于评估两组之间 SIC 标准化记录的统计学显著差异。

结果

在 2879 次就诊中,随机选择了 202 次就诊记录。对于 156 名(77.2%)患者,裁判回答“否”。与回答“是”的患者相比,回答“否”的患者通常年龄更大,合并症更多,并且更有可能进行 SIC 的标准化记录(14 [9.0%] vs. 0 [0.0%],p=0.042)。

结论

大约四分之三 RRS 较高的患者预计寿命不足一年。尽管这些患者更有可能进行 SIC,但 SIC 的发生率极低。在质量改进计划中,将可用的电子健康记录(EHR)数据与简单的单问题筛选工具相结合,可能有助于识别需要进行 SIC 的住院患者。

相似文献

1
Identification of Hospitalized Patients Who May Benefit from a Serious Illness Conversation Using the Readmission Risk Score Combined with the Surprise Question.使用再入院风险评分联合意外问题识别可能从严重疾病对话中获益的住院患者。
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024 Dec;50(12):842-848. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.003. Epub 2024 Aug 10.
2
Who Gets (and Who Should Get) a Serious Illness Conversation in the Hospital? An Analysis of Readmission Risk Score in an Electronic Health Record.谁(以及谁应该)在医院进行严重疾病的对话?电子健康记录中再入院风险评分的分析。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2023 Jun;40(6):652-657. doi: 10.1177/10499091221129602. Epub 2022 Sep 26.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Association of Emergency Clinicians' Assessment of Mortality Risk With Actual 1-Month Mortality Among Older Adults Admitted to the Hospital.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。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1911139. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11139.
5
Using implementation science to encourage Serious Illness Conversations on general medicine inpatient services: An interrupted time series.
J Hosp Med. 2025 May;20(5):437-445. doi: 10.1002/jhm.13537. Epub 2024 Oct 29.
6
The Surprise Question and Serious Illness Conversations: A pilot study.惊喜问题和严重疾病对话:一项试点研究。
Nurs Ethics. 2021 Sep;28(6):1010-1025. doi: 10.1177/0969733020983392. Epub 2021 Mar 9.
7
Trained Clinician's Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations and Use of Billing CPT 99497.临床医生对严重疾病谈话的记录和使用计费 CPT 99497。
J Palliat Care. 2022 Jul;37(3):323-331. doi: 10.1177/08258597211049136. Epub 2021 Dec 17.
8
Usability of the surprise question by nurses to identify 12-month mortality in hospitalized older patients: A prospective cohort study.护士使用惊讶问题识别住院老年患者 12 个月死亡率的可用性:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Sep;109:103609. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103609. Epub 2020 May 29.
9
The Association of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations With Healthcare Utilization in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis.严重疾病对话标准化文档记录与住院患者医疗利用的关联:倾向评分匹配队列分析。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2024 May;41(5):479-485. doi: 10.1177/10499091231186818. Epub 2023 Jun 29.
10
A Mixed Methods Analysis of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations Within an Electronic Health Record Module During Hospitalization.基于电子病历模块的住院期间严重疾病交流的标准化文档记录的混合方法分析。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2025 Jan;42(1):14-19. doi: 10.1177/10499091241228269. Epub 2024 Feb 9.