Can acutely ill patients predict their outcomes? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The full impact of an acute illness on subsequent health is seldom explicitly discussed with patients. Patients' estimates of their likely prognosis have been explored in chronic care settings and can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. This scoping review aimed to identify studies of acutely ill patients' estimates of their outcomes and potential benefits for their care. METHODS: A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar, using terms related to prognostication and acute care. After removal of duplicates, all articles were assessed for relevance by six investigator pairs; disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: Our search identified 3265 articles, of which 10 were included. The methods of assessing self-prognostication were very heterogeneous. Patients seem to be able to predict their need for hospital admission in certain settings, but not their length of stay. The severity of their symptoms and the burden of their disease are often overestimated or underestimated by patients. Patients with severe health conditions and their relatives tend to be overoptimistic about the likely outcome. CONCLUSION: The understanding of acutely ill patients of their likely outcomes and benefits of treatment has not been adequately studied and is a major knowledge gap. Limited published literature suggests patients may be able to predict their need for hospital admission. Illness perception may influence help-seeking behaviour, speed of recovery and subsequent quality of life. Knowledge of patients' self-prognosis may enhance communication between patients and their physicians, which improves patient-centred care.

Leaving the hospital on time: hospital bed utilization and reasons for discharge delay in the Netherlands.

Inappropriate bed occupancy due to delayed hospital discharge affects both physical and psychological well-being in patients and can disrupt patient flow. The Dutch healthcare system is facing ongoing pressure, especially during the current coronavirus disease pandemic, intensifying the need for optimal use of hospital beds. The aim of this study was to quantify inappropriate patient stays and describe the underlying reasons for the delays in discharge. The Day of Care Survey (DoCS) is a validated tool used to gain information about appropriate and inappropriate bed occupancy in hospitals. Between February 2019 and January 2021, the DoCS was performed five times in three different hospitals within the region of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. All inpatients were screened, using standardized criteria, for their need for in-hospital care at the time of survey and reasons for discharge delay. A total of 782 inpatients were surveyed. Of these patients, 94 (12%) were planned for definite discharge that day. Of all other patients, 145 (21%, ranging from 14% to 35%) were without the need for acute in-hospital care. In 74% (107/145) of patients, the reason for discharge delay was due to issues outside the hospital; most frequently due to a shortage of available places in care homes (26%, 37/145). The most frequent reason for discharge delay inside the hospital was patients awaiting a decision or review by the treating physician (14%, 20/145). Patients who did not meet the criteria for hospital stay were, in general, older [median 75, interquartile range (IQR) 65-84 years, and 67, IQR 55-75 years, respectively, P < .001] and had spent more days in hospital (7, IQR 5-14 days, and 3, IQR 1-8 days respectively, P < .001). Approximately one in five admitted patients occupying hospital beds did not meet the criteria for acute in-hospital stay or care at the time of the survey. Most delays were related to issues outside the immediate control of the hospital. Improvement programmes working with stakeholders focusing on the transfer from hospital to outside areas of care need to be further developed and may offer potential for the greatest gain. The DoCS can be a tool to periodically monitor changes and improvements in patient flow.

Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design.

BACKGROUND: Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. METHODS: This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. RESULTS: The most reported answers to "what matters most (and why)?" were 'getting better or being in good health' (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), 'getting home' (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and 'having a diagnosis' (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals' own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538 .

Fatal Adverse Events in Femoral Neck Fracture Patients Undergoing Hemiarthroplasty or Total Hip Arthroplasty-A Retrospective Record Review Study in a Nationwide Sample of Deceased Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patient safety is a core component of quality of hospital care and measurable through adverse event (AE) rates. A high-risk group are femoral neck fracture patients. The Dutch clinical guideline states that the treatment of choice is cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). We aimed to identify the prevalence of AEs related to THA/HA in a sample of patients who died in the hospital. METHODS: We used data of a nationwide retrospective record review study. Records were systematically reviewed for AEs, preventability and contribution to the patient's death. We drew a subsample of THA/HA AEs and analyzed these cases. RESULTS: Of the 2998 reviewed records, 38 patients underwent THA/HA, of whom 24 patients suffered 25 AEs (prevalence = 68.1%; 95% confidence interval, 51.4-81.2), and 24 contributed to death. Patients with a THA/HA AE were of high age (median = 82.5 y) and had severe comorbidity (Charlson score ≥5). The majority of THA/HA AEs had a patient-related cause and was considered partly preventable. Examples of suggested actions that might have prevented the AEs: refraining from surgery, adhering to medication guidelines, uncemented procedures, comprehensive presurgical geriatric assessment, and better postsurgical monitoring. DISCUSSION: Our study shows a high prevalence of (fatal) adverse events in patients undergoing THA/HA. This seems particularly valid for cemented implants in frail old patients, indicating room for improvement of patient safety in this group. Therefore, we recommend physicians to engage in comprehensive shared decision making with these patients and decide on a treatment fitting to a patient's preexisting health status, preferences, and values.

Experiences and perspectives of older patients with a return visit to the emergency department within 30 days: patient journey mapping.

PURPOSE: Up to 22% of older patients who visit the emergency department (ED) have a return visit within 30 days. To achieve patient-centered care for this group at the ED it is important to involve the patient perspective and strive to provide the best possible experience. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of older patients from initial to return ED visit by mapping their patient journey. METHODS: We performed a qualitative patient journey study with 13 patients of 70 years and older with a return ED visit within 30 days who presented at the Amsterdam UMC, a Dutch academic hospital. We used semi-structured interviews focusing on the patient experience during their journey and developed a conceptual framework for coding. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 13 older patients with an average age of 80 years, and 62% of them were males. The framework contained a timeline of the patient journey with five chronological main themes, complemented with an 'experience' theme, these were divided into 34 subthemes. Health status, social system, contact with the general practitioner, aftercare, discharge and expectations were the five main themes. The experiences regarding these themes differed greatly between patients. The two most prominent subthemes were waiting time and discharge communication, which were mostly related to a negative experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the experiences and perspectives of older patients from initial to return ED visit. The two major findings were that lack of clarity regarding waiting times and suboptimal discharge communication contributed to negative experiences. Recommendations regarding waiting time (i.e. a two-hour time out at the ED), and discharge communication (i.e. checklist for discharge) could contribute to a positive ED experience and thereby potentially improve patient-centered care.

The Incidence and Preventability of Adverse Events in Older Acutely Admitted Patients: A Longitudinal Study With 4292 Patient Records.

OBJECTIVES: Acute care crowding is a global issue, jeopardizing patient safety. An important cause of crowding is the growing number of older, vulnerable, and complex patients. This group is at higher risk of experiencing (preventable) adverse events (AEs) than younger patients.This study aimed to identify the incidence, preventability, nature, and prevention strategies of AEs in older patients during an acute hospital admission and to assess changes over time. METHODS: We analyzed data of 4292 acutely admitted patients (70+) who died in the hospital, using data of a multicenter Dutch AE record review study (2008, 2012, 2016). Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to adjust for patient-mix differences and clustering on department/hospital level per year. RESULTS: The incidence of AEs in this group declined significantly (χ2(1) = 8.78, P = 0.003) from 10.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] =8.2-13.9) in 2008, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.6-9.7) in 2012, to 7.2% (95% CI = 5.5-9.3) in 2016. The relative preventability showed a significant parabolic trend (χ2(1) = 4.86, P = 0.027), from 46.2% (95% CI = 34.1-58.7), to 32.4% (95% CI = 21.1-46.1), to 44.6% (95% CI = 32-58). Adverse events were often related to medication (26.3% in 2008, 35.1% in 2012, and 39.5% in 2016), and the preventability in AEs related to diagnosis was highest (88.3%, 70.8%, and 79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of AEs in older acutely admitted patients declined over the years; however, the preventability increased again after an initial decline. This could be related to crowding or increasing complexity in the acute care chain. Further monitoring and improvement in (preventable) AE rates are necessary to pinpoint areas of improvement to make hospital care for this vulnerable group safer.

The Value of Artificial Intelligence in Laboratory Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: As laboratory medicine continues to undergo digitalization and automation, clinical laboratorians will likely be confronted with the challenges associated with artificial intelligence (AI). Understanding what AI is good for, how to evaluate it, what are its limitations, and how it can be implemented are not well understood. With a survey, we aimed to evaluate the thoughts of stakeholders in laboratory medicine on the value of AI in the diagnostics space and identify anticipated challenges and solutions to introducing AI. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey on the use of AI with participants from Roche's Strategic Advisory Network that included key stakeholders in laboratory medicine. RESULTS: In total, 128 of 302 stakeholders responded to the survey. Most of the participants were medical practitioners (26%) or laboratory managers (22%). AI is currently used in the organizations of 15.6%, while 66.4% felt they might use it in the future. Most had an unsure attitude on what they would need to adopt AI in the diagnostics space. High investment costs, lack of proven clinical benefits, number of decision makers, and privacy concerns were identified as barriers to adoption. Education in the value of AI, streamlined implementation and integration into existing workflows, and research to prove clinical utility were identified as solutions needed to mainstream AI in laboratory medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates that specific knowledge of AI in the medical community is poor and that AI education is much needed. One strategy could be to implement new AI tools alongside existing tools.

Can vital signs recorded in patients' homes aid decision making in emergency care? A Scoping Review.

AIM: Use of tele-health programs and wearable sensors that allow patients to monitor their own vital signs have been expanded in response to COVID-19. We aimed to explore the utility of patient-held data during presentation as medical emergencies. METHODS: We undertook a systematic scoping review of two groups of studies: studies using non-invasive vital sign monitoring in patients with chronic diseases aimed at preventing unscheduled reviews in primary care, hospitalization or emergency department visits and studies using vital sign measurements from wearable sensors for decision making by clinicians on presentation of these patients as emergencies. Only studies that described a comparator or control group were included. Studies limited to inpatient use of devices were excluded. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 896 references for screening, nine more studies were identified through searches of references. 26 studies fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria and were further analyzed. The majority of studies were from telehealth programs of patients with congestive heart failure or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. There was limited evidence that patient held data is currently used to risk-stratify the admission or discharge process for medical emergencies. Studies that showed impact on mortality or hospital admission rates measured vital signs at least daily. We identified no interventional study using commercially available sensors in watches or smart phones. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine utility of patient held monitoring devices to guide management of acute medical emergencies at the patients' home, on presentation to hospital and after discharge back to the community.