ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although unscheduled readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality indicator, only few readmission studies have focused on surgical patient populations. METHODS: An observational study "CURIOS@" was performed at three centers in the Netherlands. Readmitted patients and treating doctors were surveyed to assess the discharge process during index admission and their opinion on predictability and preventability of the readmission. Risk factors associated with predictability and preventability as judged by patients and their doctor were identified. Cohen's kappa was calculated to measure pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable. PRISMA root cause categories were used to qualify the reasons for readmission. RESULTS: In 237 unscheduled surgical readmissions, more patients assessed their readmissions to be likely preventable compared with their treating doctors (28.7% versus 6.8%; kappa, 0.071). This was also reflected in poor consensus about risk factors and root causes of these readmissions. When patients reported that they did not feel ready for discharge or requested their doctor to allow them to stay longer at discharge during index admission, they deemed their readmission more likely predictable and preventable. Doctors focused on measurable factors such as the clinical frailty scale and biomarkers during discharge process. Health-care worker failures were strongly associated with preventable readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus between readmitted patients and treating doctors about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor about associated risk factors and root causes. Patients should be more effectively involved in their discharge process, and the relevance of optimal communication between them should be emphasized to create a safe and efficient discharge process.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision Rules , Patient Participation/psychology , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Physician-Patient Relations , Physicians/psychology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Communication , Consensus , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Patient Discharge , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of frailty may be an essential part of evaluation in any healthcare encounter that might result in an escalation of care. The purpose of the study was to assess the frequency and association of frailty with clinical outcomes in patients subject to rapid response team (RRT) review. METHODS: In this multi-national prospective observational cohort study, centres with existing RRTs collected data over a 7-day period, with follow up of all patients at 24 h following their RRT call and at hospital discharge or 30 days following the event trigger (whichever came sooner). Investigators also collected data on the triggers and interventions provided and a bedside assessment on the level of patients' frailty using a clinical frailty scale. RESULTS: Amongst 1133 patients, 40% were screened as frail, which was associated with older age (p < 0.001), admission under a medical speciality (p < 0.001), increased severity of illness at the time of the RRT review (p = 0.0047), and substantially higher frequency of limitations of care (p < 0.001). Importantly, 72% of patients screened as frail were either dead or dependent on hospital care by 30 days (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the significant risk factors for the composite endpoint "poor recovery" (died or were hospital-dependent by 30 days) were age (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.05; p < 0.001), frailty level (p < 0.001), existing limitation of care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; p < 0.001), and the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher frailty scores were associated with increased mortality and dependence on health care at 30 days. Our results indicate that frailty has an influence on the clinical trajectory of deteriorating patients and that such assessment should be included in discussion of goals and expectations of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR5535 . Registered on 23 December 2015.
Subject(s)
Frailty/complications , Hospital Rapid Response Team/standards , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Chi-Square Distribution , Cohort Studies , Female , Frailty/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Hospital Rapid Response Team/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Internationality , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Prospective Studies , Research Design/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Aim: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the readiness of international hospitals to implement consensus-based quality metrics for rapid response systems (RRS) and evaluate the feasibility of collecting these metrics. Methods: A digital survey was developed and distributed to hospital administrators and clinicians worldwide. The survey captured data on the recommended quality metrics for RRS and collected information on hospital characteristics. Statistical analysis included descriptive evaluations and comparisons by country and hospital type. Results: A total of 109 hospitals from 11 countries participated in the survey. Most hospitals had some form of RRS in place, with multiple parameter track and trigger systems being commonly used. The survey revealed variations in the adoption of quality metrics among hospitals. Metrics related to patient-activated rapid response and organizational culture were collected less frequently. Geographical differences were observed, with hospitals in Australia and New Zealand demonstrating higher adoption of core quality metrics. Urban hospitals reported a lower number of recorded metrics compared to metropolitan and rural hospitals. Conclusion: The study highlights the feasibility of collecting consensus-based quality metrics for RRS in international hospitals. However, variations in data collection and adoption of specific metrics suggest potential barriers and the need for further exploration. Standardized quality metrics are crucial for effective RRS functioning and continuous improvement in patient care. Collaborative initiatives and further research are needed to overcome barriers, enhance data collection capabilities, and facilitate knowledge sharing among healthcare providers to improve the quality and safety of RRS implementation globally.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinically significant deterioration of patients admitted to general wards is a recognized complication of hospital care. Rapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to reduce the number of avoidable adverse events. The authors aimed to develop a core quality metric for the evaluation of RRS. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus process. Participants included patients, carers, clinicians, research scientists, and members of the International Society for Rapid Response Systems with representatives from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia and the US. Scoping reviews of the literature identified potential metrics. We used a modified Delphi methodology to arrive at a list of candidate indicators that were reviewed for feasibility and applicability across a broad range of healthcare systems including low and middle-income countries. The writing group refined recommendations and further characterized measurement tools. RESULTS: Consensus emerged that core outcomes for reporting for quality improvement should include ten metrics related to structure, process and outcome for RRS with outcomes following the domains of the quadruple aim. The conference recommended that hospitals should collect data on cardiac arrests and their potential predictability, timeliness of escalation, critical care interventions and presence of written treatment goals for patients remaining on general wards. Unit level reporting should include the presence of patient activated rapid response and metrics of organizational culture. We suggest two exploratory cost metrics to underpin urgently needed research in this area. CONCLUSION: A consensus process was used to develop ten metrics for better understanding the course and care of deteriorating ward patients. Others are proposed for further development.