Clinicians' and public acceptability of universal risk-of-death screening for older people in routine clinical practice in Australia: cross-sectional surveys.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' delays to identify risk of death and communicate it to patients nearing the end of life contribute to health-related harm in health services worldwide. This study sought to ascertain doctors, nurses and senior members of the public's perceptions of the routine use of a screening tool to predict risk of death for older people. METHODS: Cross-sectional online, face-to-face and postal survey of 360 clinicians and 497 members of the public. RESULTS: Most (65.9%) of the members of the public welcomed (and 12.3% were indifferent to) the use of a screening tool as a decision guide to minimise overtreatment and errors from clinician assumptions. Supporters of the use of a prognostic tool were likely to be males with high social capital, chronically ill and who did not have an advance health directive. The majority of clinicians (75.6%) reported they were likely or very likely to use the tool, or might consider using it if convinced of its accuracy. A minority (13.3%) stated they preferred to rely on their clinical judgement and would be unlikely to use it. Differentials in support for tools by seniority were observed, with more support expressed by nurses, interns and registrars than medical specialists (χ2 = 12.95, p = 0.044) and by younger (< 40 years) clinicians (81.2% vs. 71.2%, p = 0.0058). DISCUSSION: The concept of integrating prognostication of death in routine practice was not resisted by either target group. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that screening for risk of death is seen as potentially useful and suggests the readiness for a culture change. Future research on implementation strategies could be a step in the right direction.

General practitioners' perceptions on the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a risk prediction checklist to support their end-of-life discussions in routine care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners' (GPs) play a central role in facilitating end-of-life discussions with older patients nearing the end-of-life. However, prognostic uncertainty of time to death is one important barrier to initiation of these discussions. OBJECTIVE: To explore GPs' perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of a risk prediction checklist to identify older patients in their last 12 months of life and describe perceived barriers and facilitators for implementing end-of-life planning. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 GPs practising in metropolitan locations in New South Wales and Queensland between May and June 2019. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged: accessibility and implementation of the checklist, uncertainty around checklist's accuracy and usefulness, time of the checklist, checklist as a potential prompt for end-of-life conversations, end-of-life conversations not an easy topic, end-of-life conversation requires time and effort, uncertainty in identifying end-of-life patients and limited community literacy on end-of-life. Most participants welcomed a risk prediction checklist in routine practice if assured of its accuracy in identifying which patients were nearing end-of-life. CONCLUSIONS: Most participating GPs saw the value in risk assessment and end-of-life planning. Many emphasized the need for appropriate support, tools and funding for prognostic screening and end-of-life planning for this to become routine in general practice. Well validated risk prediction tools are needed to increase clinician confidence in identifying risk of death to support end-of-life care planning.

End-of-life priorities of older adults with terminal illness and caregivers: A qualitative consultation.

BACKGROUND: As older adults approach the end-of-life (EOL), many are faced with complex decisions including whether to use medical advances to prolong life. Limited information exists on the priorities of older adults at the EOL. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore patient and family experiences and identify factors deemed important to quality EOL care. METHOD: A descriptive qualitative study involving three focus group discussions (n = 18) and six in-depth interviews with older adults suffering from either a terminal condition and/or caregivers were conducted in NSW, Australia. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Seven major themes were identified as follows: quality as a priority, sense of control, life on hold, need for health system support, being at home, talking about death and competent and caring health professionals. An underpinning priority throughout the seven themes was knowing and adhering to patient's wishes. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights that to better adhere to EOL patient's wishes a reorganization of care needs is required. The readiness of the health system to cater for this expectation is questionable as real choices may not be available in acute hospital settings. With an ageing population, a reorganization of care which influences the way we manage terminal patients is required.

Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions administered, and measure the cost of hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of 733 adult inpatients with data for the period three months before and after their last placed RRS call. Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 80 years was conducted. Log-rank, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare survival, and logistic regression was used to examine predictors of death. RESULTS: Overall, 65 (8.9%) patients had a preexisting not-for-resuscitation (NFR) or not-for-RRS order; none of those patients survived to three months. By contrast, patients without an NFR or not-for-RRS order had three-month survival probability of 71% (log-rank χ2 145.63; p < 0.001). Compared with survivors, RRS recipients who died were more likely to be older, to be admitted to a medical ward, and to have a larger mean number of admissions before the RRS. The average cost of hospitalization for the very old transferred to the ICU was higher than for those not requiring treatment in the ICU (US$33,990 vs. US$14,774; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Identifiable risk factors clearly associated with poor clinical outcomes and death can be used as a guide to administer less aggressive treatments, including reconsideration of ICU transfers, adherence to NFR orders, and transition to end-of-life management instead of calls to the RRS team.

Levels of frailty and frailty progression in older urban- and regional-living First Nations Australians.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the prevalence of frailty, association between frailty and mortality, and transitions between frailty states in urban- and regional-living First Nations Australians. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of longitudinal data from the Koori Growing Old Well Study. First Nations Australians aged 60 years or more from five non-remote communities were recruited in 2010-2012 and followed up six years later (2016-2018). Data collected at both visits were used to derive a 38-item Frailty Index (FI). The FI (range 0-1.0) was classified as robust (<0.1), pre-frail (0.1- < 0.2), mildly (0.2- < 0.3), moderately (0.3- < 0.4) or severely frail (≥0.4). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Association between frailty and mortality, examined using logistic regression and transitions in frailty (the percentage of participants who changed frailty category) during follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 313 of 336 participants (93 %) had sufficient data to calculate a FI. Median FI score was 0.26 (interquartile range 0.21-0.39); 4.79 % were robust, 20.1 % pre-frail, 31.6 % mildly frail, 23.0 % moderately frail and 20.5 % severely frail. Higher baseline frailty was associated with mortality among severely frail participants (adjusted odds ratio 7.11, 95 % confidence interval 2.51-20.09) but not moderately or mildly frail participants. Of the 153 participants with a FI at both baseline and follow-up, their median FI score increased from 0.26 to 0.28. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of frailty in this First Nations cohort are substantially higher than in similar-aged non-Indigenous populations. Screening for frailty before the age of 70 years may be warranted in First Nations Australians. Further research is urgently needed to determine the factors that are driving such high levels of frailty and propose solutions to prevent or manage frailty in this population.

Delivering Prognostic News to Older People with Chronic Disease: What Format Preference and Level of Involvement in Decision Making? A Hospital Survey.

Shared decision making near end of life is a balancing act of communicating prognosis to patients and their surrogates/families and engaging them in considering value-concordant management choices. This cross-sectional survey aimed to determine the format in which older patients with chronic illnesses would prefer to receive prognostic information on their treatment options and disease progression, and their desired level of engagement in decision making. With a 60% participation rate, 139 inpatients in two hospitals and five surrogates were presented with six hypothetical scenarios with a randomly assigned sequence: verbal and written summary, graph, table, photo, video, and pamphlet. The majority (76%) of respondents chose the traditional verbal communication of prognosis by their doctor with a written summary as a reference and to share with family; the second choice was a condition-specific pamphlet (63%). Many found the graph and photo to be distressing (36% and 42%, respectively). Most (71%) wanted to know everything about their condition trajectory, and 63% chose shared decision making rather than completely autonomous or full delegation to clinicians or family. There were no gender differentials between wanting to know it all, supporting shared decision making or the preferred format for breaking news (p > 0.05). Older hospitalized patients with chronic conditions are willing to discuss end-of-life issues, learn about their prognosis, and be involved in shared decision making. Innovative formats such as graphs, videos, or photos were not welcome as part of the prognostic discussion.

Development and preliminary usability testing of an electronic conversation guide incorporating patient values and prognostic information in preparation for older people's decision-making near the end of life.

Initiating end-of-life conversations can be daunting for clinicians and overwhelming for patients and families. This leads to delays in communicating prognosis and preparing for the inevitable in old age, often generating potentially harmful overtreatment and poor-quality deaths. We aimed to develop an electronic resource, called Communicating Health Alternatives Tool (CHAT) that was compatible with hospital medical records software to facilitate preparation for shared decision-making across health settings with older adults deemed to be in the last year of life. The project used mixed methods including: literature review, user-directed specifications, web-based interface development with authentication and authorization; clinician and consumer co-design, iterative consultation for user testing; and ongoing developer integration of user feedback. An internet-based conversation guide to facilitate clinician-led advance care planning was co-developed covering screening for short-term risk of death, patient values and preferences, and treatment choices for chronic kidney disease and dementia. Printed summary of such discussion could be used to begin the process in hospital or community health services. Clinicians, patients, and caregivers agreed with its ease of use and were generally accepting of its contents and format. CHAT is available to health services for implementation in effectiveness trials to determine whether the interaction and documentation leads to formal decision-making, goal-concordant care, and subsequent reduction of unwanted treatments at the end of life.

The Feasibility of Deriving the Electronic Frailty Index from Australian General Practice Records.

Purpose: Frailty is a prevalent condition in older adults. Identification of frailty using an electronic Frailty Index (eFI) has been successfully implemented across general practices in the United Kingdom. However, in Australia, the eFI remains understudied. Therefore, we aimed to (i) examine the feasibility of deriving an eFI from Australian general practice records and (ii) describe the prevalence of frailty as measured by the eFI and the prevalence with socioeconomic status and geographic remoteness. Participants and Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients (≥70 years) attending any one of >700 general practices utilizing the Australian MedicineInsight data platform, 2017-2018. A 36-item eFI was derived using standard methodology, with frailty classified as mild (scores 0.13-0.24); moderate (0.25-0.36) or severe (≥0.37). Socioeconomic status (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) index)) and geographic remoteness (Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGC) remoteness areas) were also examined. Results: In total, 79,251 patients (56% female) were included, mean age 80.0 years (SD 6.5); 37.4% (95% CI 37.0-37.7) were mildly frail, 16.7% (95% CI 16.4-16.9) moderately frail, 4.8% (95% CI 4.7-5.0) severely frail. Median eFI score was 0.14 (IQR 0.08 to 0.22); maximum eFI score was 0.69. Across all age groups, moderate and severe frailty was significantly more prevalent in females (P < 0.001). Frailty severity increased with increasing age (P < 0.001) and was strongly associated with socioeconomic disadvantage (P < 0.001) but not with geographic remoteness. Conclusion: Frailty was identifiable from routinely collected general practice data. Frailty was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, women and older patients and existed in all levels of remoteness. Routine implementation of an eFI could inform interventions to prevent or reduce frailty in all older adults, regardless of location.

Frailty in Indigenous Populations: A Scoping Review.

Background: Indigenous populations experience high rates of age-related illness when compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Frailty is a challenging expression of aging and an important public health priority. The purpose of this review was to map what the existing literature reports around frailty in Indigenous populations and to highlight the current gaps in frailty research within the Indigenous landscape. Method: Scoping review of English language original research articles focusing on frailty within Indigenous adult populations in settler colonial countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA). Ten electronic databases and eight relevant institutional websites were searched from inception to October 2020. Results: Nine articles met our inclusion criteria, finding this population having a higher prevalence of frailty and frailty occurring at younger ages when compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, but two did not use a formal frailty tool. Females presented with higher levels of frailty. No culturally specific frailty tool was identified, and the included articles did not assess strategies or interventions to manage or prevent frailty in Indigenous peoples. Conclusions: There was little definitive evidence of the true frailty prevalence, approaches to frailty screening and of potential points of intervention to manage or prevent the onset of frailty. Improvements in the quality of evidence are urgently needed, along with further research to determine the factors contributing to higher rates of frailty within Indigenous populations. Incorporation of Indigenous views of frailty, and instruments and programs that are led and designed by Indigenous communities, are crucial to address this public health priority.

How Do Patients with Life-Limiting Illness and Caregivers Want End-Of-Life Prognostic Information Delivered? A Pilot Study.

We aimed to identify the level of prognostic disclosure, type of prognostic information and delivery format of prognostic communication that older adults diagnosed with a life-limiting illness or caregivers prefer to receive. We developed and pilot tested an open-ended survey to 15 older patients and caregivers who had experience in health services for life-limiting illness either for a relative, friend or themselves. Five hypothetical clinical scenarios of prognostic options were presented to ascertain preferences. The preferred format to receive prognostic information was verbal delivery by the clinician with a written summary. Photos and videos were less favoured, and a table with numbers/percentages was least preferred. Distress levels to the prognostic scenarios were low, with the exception of a photo. We conclude that older patients/caregivers want end-of-life prognostic information delivered the traditional way, verbally by clinicians. Options to deliver prognostic information may vary across patient groups but empower clinicians in introducing end-of-life discussions with patients/caregivers. Our study illustrates the feasibility of involving terminal patients and caregivers in research that contributes to eliciting prognostic preferences. Further research is needed to understand whether the prognostic preferences of hospitalized patients with life-limiting illness differ.

Appropriateness of intensive care treatments near the end of life during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The patient and family perspective on the appropriateness of intensive care unit (ICU) treatments involves preferences, values and social constructs beyond medical criteria. The clinician's perception of inappropriateness is more reliant on clinical judgment. Earlier consultation with families before ICU admission and patient education on the outcomes of life-sustaining therapies may help reconcile these provider-patient disagreements. However, global emergencies like COVID-19 change the usual paradigm of end-of-life care, as it is a new disease with only scarce predictive information about it. Pandemics can also bring about the burdensome predicament of doctors having to make unwanted choices of rationing access to the ICU when demand for otherwise life-saving resources exceeds supply. Evidence-based prognostic checklists may guide treatment triage but the principles of shared decision-making are unchanged. Yet, they need to be altered with respect to COVID-19, defining likely outcomes and likelihood of benefit for the patient, and clarifying their willingness to take on the risks inherent to being in an ICU for 2 weeks for those eligible. For patients who are admitted during the prodrome of COVID-19 disease, or those who deteriorate in the second week, clinicians have some lead time in hospital to have appropriate discussions about ceilings of treatments offered based on severity. KEY POINTS: The patient and family perspective on inappropriateness of intensive care at the end of life often differs from the clinician's opinion due to the nonmedical frame of mind.To improve satisfaction with communication on treatment goals, consultation on patient values and inclusion of social constructs in addition to clinical prediction is a good start to reconcile differences between physician and health service users' viewpoints.During pandemics, where health systems may collapse, different admission criteria driven by the need to ration services may be warranted. EDUCATIONAL AIMS: To explore the extent to which older patients and their families are involved in decisions about appropriateness of intensive care admission or treatmentsTo understand how patients or their families define inappropriate intensive care admission or treatmentsTo reflect on the implications of decision to admit or not to admit to the intensive care unit in the face of acute resource shortages during a pandemic.

Feasibility of Using a Risk Assessment Tool to Predict Hospital Transfers or Death for Older People in Australian Residential Aged Care. A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Residents of Aged Care Facilities (RACF) experience burdensome hospital transfers in the last year of life, which may lead to aggressive and potentially inappropriate hospital treatments. Anticipating these transfers by identifying risk factors could encourage end-of-life discussions that may change decisions to transfer. The aim was to examine the feasibility of identifying an end-of-life risk profile among RACF residents using a predictive tool to better anticipate predictors of hospital transfers, death or poor composite outcome of hospitalisation and/or death after initial assessment. A retrospective cohort study of 373 permanent residents aged 65+ years was conducted using objective clinical factors from records in nine RACFs in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. In total, 26.8% died and 34.3% experienced a composite outcome. Cox proportional hazard regression models confirmed the feasibility of estimating the level of risk for death or a poor composite outcome. Knowing this should provide opportunities to initiate advance care planning in RACFs, facilitating decision making near the end of life. We conclude that the current structure of electronic RACF databases could be enhanced to enable comprehensive assessment of the risk of hospital re-attendance without admission. Automation tools to facilitate the risk score calculation may encourage the adoption of prediction checklists and evaluation of their association with hospital transfers.

It is feasible to flag 'near end-of-life' status in older patients from routine general practice data.

METHOD: A retrospective chart review was used to assess the feasibility of identifying these indicators in the data (160,897 patients from 464 practices across Australia). Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the independent contribution of nEOL indicators in patients aged 75-84 and ≥85 years using a case-control design matching by practice. RESULTS: The strongest indicators for nEOL status were advanced malignancy, residential aged care, nutritional vulnerability, anaemia, cognitive impairment and heart failure. Other indicators included hospital attendance, pneumonia, decubitus ulcer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, antipsychotic prescription, male sex and stroke. DISCUSSION: Consideration of routinely collected patient data may suggest nEOL status and trigger advance care planning discussions.

Prospective Validation of a Checklist to Predict Short-term Death in Older Patients After Emergency Department Admission in Australia and Ireland.

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.

Which frailty scale for patients admitted via Emergency Department? A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of frailty in Emergency Departments (EDs); examine the ability of frailty to predict poor outcomes post-discharge; and identify the most appropriate instrument for routine ED use. METHODS: In this prospective study we simultaneously assessed adults 65+yrs admitted and/or spent one night in the ED using Fried, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and SUHB (Stable, Unstable, Help to walk, Bedbound) scales in four Australian EDs for rapid recognition of frailty between June 2015 and March 2016. RESULTS: 899 adults with complete follow-up data (mean (SD) age 80.0 (8.3) years; female 51.4%) were screened for frailty. Although different scales yielded vastly different frailty prevalence (SUHB 9.7%, Fried 30.4%, CFS 43.7%), predictive discrimination of poor discharge outcomes (death, poor self-reported health/quality of life, need for community services post-discharge, or reattendance to ED after the index hospitalization) for all identical final models was equivalent across all scales (AUROC 0.735 for Fried, 0.730 for CFS and 0.720 for SUHB). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that screening for frailty in older ED patients can inform prognosis and target discharge planning including community services required. The CFS was as accurate as the Fried and SUHB in predicting poor outcomes, but more practical for use in busy clinical environments with lower level of disruption. Given the limitations of objectively measuring frailty parameters, self-report and clinical judgment can reliably substitute the assessment in EDs. We propose that in a busy ED environment, frailty scores could be used as a red flag for poor follow-up outcome.

Predictive validity of the CriSTAL tool for short-term mortality in older people presenting at Emergency Departments: a prospective study.

ABSTRACT: To determine the validity of the Australian clinical prediction tool Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care (CRISTAL) based on objective clinical criteria to accurately identify risk of death within 3 months of admission among older patients. METHODS: Prospective study of ≥ 65 year-olds presenting at emergency departments in five Australian (Aus) and four Danish (DK) hospitals. Logistic regression analysis was used to model factors for death prediction; Sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve and calibration with bootstrapping techniques were used to describe predictive accuracy. RESULTS: 2493 patients, with median age 78-80 years (DK-Aus). The deceased had significantly higher mean CriSTAL with Australian mean of 8.1 (95% CI 7.7-8.6 vs. 5.8 95% CI 5.6-5.9) and Danish mean 7.1 (95% CI 6.6-7.5 vs. 5.5 95% CI 5.4-5.6). The model with Fried Frailty score was optimal for the Australian cohort but prediction with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was also good (AUROC 0.825 and 0.81, respectively). Values for the Danish cohort were AUROC 0.764 with Fried and 0.794 using CFS. The most significant independent predictors of short-term death in both cohorts were advanced malignancy, frailty, male gender and advanced age. CriSTAL's accuracy was only modest for in-hospital death prediction in either setting. CONCLUSIONS: The modified CriSTAL tool (with CFS instead of Fried's frailty instrument) has good discriminant power to improve prognostic certainty of short-term mortality for ED physicians in both health systems. This shows promise in enhancing clinician's confidence in initiating earlier end-of-life discussions.

Efficacy of a tool to predict short-term mortality in older people presenting at emergency departments: Protocol for a multi-centre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty inhibits clinicians from initiating timely end-of-life discussions and advance care planning. This study evaluates the efficacy of the CriSTAL (Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care) checklist in emergency departments. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥65 years with any diagnosis admitted via emergency departments in ten hospitals in Australia, Denmark and Ireland. Electronic and paper clinical records will be used to extract risk factors such as nursing home residency, physiological deterioration warranting a rapid response call, personal history of active chronic disease, history of hospitalisations or intensive care unit admission in the past year, evidence of proteinuria or ECG abnormalities, and evidence of frailty to be concurrently measured with Fried Score and Clinical Frailty Scale. Patients or their informal caregivers will be contacted by telephone around three months after initial assessment to ascertain survival, self-reported health, post-discharge frailty and health service utilisation since discharge. Logistic regression and bootstrapping techniques and AUROC curves will be used to test the predictive accuracy of CriSTAL for death within 90 days of admission and in-hospital death. DISCUSSION: The CriSTAL checklist is an objective and practical tool for use in emergency departments among older patients to determine individual probability of death in the short-term. Its validation in this cohort is expected to reduce clinicians' prognostic uncertainty on the time to patients' death and encourage timely end-of-life conversations to support clinical decisions with older frail patients and their families about their imminent or future care choices.