Association of Emergency Clinicians' Assessment of Mortality Risk With Actual 1-Month Mortality Among Older Adults Admitted to the Hospital.

Importance: The accuracy of mortality assessment by emergency clinicians is unknown and may affect subsequent medical decision-making. Objective: To determine the association of the question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" (known as the surprise question) asked of emergency clinicians with actual 1-month mortality among undifferentiated older adults who visited the emergency department (ED). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study at a single academic medical center in Portland, Maine, included consecutive patients 65 years or older who received care in the ED and were subsequently admitted to the hospital from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015. Data analyses were conducted from January 2018 to March 2019. Exposures: Treating emergency clinicians were required to answer the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next one month?" in the electronic medical record when placing a bed request for all patients who were being admitted to the hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month, assessed from the National Death Index. The secondary outcomes included accuracies of responses by both emergency clinicians and admitting internal medicine clinicians to the surprise question in identifying older patients with high 6-month and 12-month mortality. Results: The full cohort included 10 737 older adults (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [8.8] years; 5532 [52%] women; 10 157 [94.6%] white) in 16 223 visits treated in the ED and admitted to the hospital. There were 5132 patients (31.6%) with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or more. Mortality rates were 8.3% at 1 month, 17.2% at 6 months, and 22.5% at 12 months. Emergency clinicians stated that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next month for 2104 patients (19.6%). In multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, race, admission diagnosis, and comorbid conditions, the odds of death at 1 month were higher in patients for whom clinicians answered that they would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month compared with patients for whom clinicians answered that they would be surprised if the patient died in the next 1 month (odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.2-2.7]; P < .001). However, the diagnostic test characteristics of the surprise question were poor (sensitivity, 20%; specificity, 93%; positive predictive value, 43%; negative predictive value, 82%; accuracy, 78%; area under the receiver operating curve of the multivariable model, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.72-0.74; P < .001]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that asking the surprise question of emergency clinicians may be a valuable tool to identify older patients in the ED with a high risk of 1-month mortality. The effect of implementing the surprise question to improve population-level health care for older adults in the ED who are seriously ill remains to be seen.

Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting.

OBJECTIVE: Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days" could predict in-hospital mortality and resource utilization for hospitalized emergency department patients. METHODS: For this observational study, emergency physicians responded to the modified surprise question with each admission over a five-month study period. Logistic regression analyses were completed and standard test characteristics evaluated. RESULTS: 6,122 visits were evaluated. Emergency physicians responded negatively to the modified surprise question in 918 (15.1%). Test characteristics for in-hospital mortality were: sensitivity 32%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 6%, negative predictive value 98%. The risk of intensive care unit use (relative risk [RR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 2.40), use of 'comfort measures' orders (RR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.81 to 4.18), palliative-care consultation (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.62 to 3.56), and in-hospital mortality (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.76) were greater for patients with negative responses. CONCLUSION: The modified surprise question is a simple trigger for palliative care needs, accurately identifying those at greater risk for in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. With a negative predictive value of 98%, affirmative responses to the modified surprise question provide reassurance that in-hospital death is unlikely.

Comparison of QSOFA score and SIRS criteria as screening mechanisms for emergency department sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: The Quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has been shown to accurately predict mortality in septic patients and is part of recently proposed diagnostic criteria for sepsis. We sought to ascertain the sensitive of the score in diagnosing sepsis, as well as the diagnostic timeliness of the score when compared to traditional systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria in a population of emergency department (ED) patients treated in the ED, admitted, and subsequently discharged with a diagnosis of sepsis. METHODS: Electronic health records of 200 patients who were treated for suspected sepsis in our ED and ultimately discharged from our hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis were randomly selected for review from a population of adult ED patients (N=1880). Data extracted included the presence of SIRS criteria and the qSOFA score as well as time required to meet said criteria. RESULTS: In this cohort, 94.5% met SIRS criteria while in the ED whereas only 58.3% met qSOFA. The mean time from arrival to SIRS documentation was 47.1min (95% CI: 36.5-57.8) compared to 84.0min (95% CI: 62.2-105.8) for qSOFA. The median ED "door" to positive SIRS criteria was 12min and 29min for qSOFA. CONCLUSIONS: Although qSOFA may be valuable in predicting sepsis-related mortality, it performed poorly as a screening tool for identifying sepsis in the ED. As the time to meet qSOFA criteria was significantly longer than for SIRS, relying on qSOFA alone may delay initiation of evidence-based interventions known to improve sepsis-related outcomes.

Using the Surprise Question To Identify Those with Unmet Palliative Care Needs in Emergency and Inpatient Settings: What Do Clinicians Think?

BACKGROUND: The surprise question (SQ), "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" is effective in identifying end-stage renal disease and cancer patients at high risk of death and therefore potentially unmet palliative care needs. Following implementation of the SQ in our acute care setting, we sought to explore hospital-based providers' perceptions of the tool. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) providers' perceptions regarding the feasibility of SQ use in emergency and inpatient settings, (2) clinician perceptions regarding the utility of the SQ, and (3) barriers to SQ use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of medical providers following addition of the SQ to the electronic record for all patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: A total of 111/203 (55%) providers participated: 48/57 (84%) emergency physicians (EPs) and 63/146 (43%) inpatient providers (IPs). Most reported no difficulty using the SQ. Modest numbers in both groups reported that the SQ influenced care delivery (EPs 37%, IPs 42%) as well as goals of care (EPs 45%, IPs 52%). At least some advance care planning discussions were prompted by the SQ (EPs 45%, IPs 58%). Team discussions were influenced by SQ use for more than half of each group. Most respondents (55%) expressed some concern that their SQ responses could be inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, clinicians indicated that use of the SQ is feasible, acceptable, and useful in facilitating advance care planning discussions among teams, patients, and families. Many reported that SQ use influenced goals of care, but concern regarding accuracy was a barrier. Additional research examining SQ accuracy and predictive ability is warranted.

Sustainable Mechanism to Reduce Emergency Department (ED) Length of Stay: The Use of ED Holding (ED Transition) Orders to Reduce ED Length of Stay.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the effect of an emergency clinician-initiated "ED admission holding order set" on emergency department (ED) treatment times and length of stay (LOS). We further describe the impact of a performance improvement strategy with sequential plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles used to influence the primary outcome measures, ED LOS, and disposition decision to patient gone (DDTPG) time, for admitted patients. METHODS: We developed and implemented an expedited, emergency physician-facilitated admission protocol that bypassed typical inpatient workflows requiring inpatient evaluations prior to the placement of admission orders. During the 48-month study period, ED flow metrics generated during the care of 27,580 admissions from the 24-month period prior to the intervention were compared to the 29,978 admissions that occurred during the 24-month period following the intervention. The intervention was the result of an in-depth, five-phase PDSA cycle quality improvement intervention evaluating ED flow, which identified the requirement of bedside inpatient evaluations prior admission order placement as being a "non-value-added" activity. ED output flow metrics evaluating the admission process were tracked for 24 months following the intervention and were compared to the 24 months prior. RESULTS: The use of an emergency physician-initiated admission holding order protocol resulted in sustainable reductions in ED LOS when comparing the 2 years prior to the intervention, with median LOS of 410 (interquartile range [IQR] = 295 to 543) and 395 (IQR = 283 to 527) minutes, to the 2 calendar years following the intervention, with the median LOS of 313 (IQR = 21 to 431) and 316 (IQR = 224 to 438) minutes, respectively. This overall reduction in ED LOS of nearly 90 minutes was found to be primarily the result of a decrease in the time from the emergency physician's admitting DDTPG times with median times of 219 (IQR = 150 to 306) and 200 (IQR = 136 to 286) minutes for the 2 years prior to the intervention compared to 89 (IQR = 58 to 138) and 92 (IQR = 60 to 147) minutes for the 2 years following the intervention. It is notable that there was a modest increase in the door to disposition decision of admission times during this same study period with annual medians of 176 (IQR = 112 to 261) and 178 (IQR = 129 to 316) minutes, respectively, for the 2 years prior to 207 (IQR = 129 to 316) and 202 (IQR = 127 to 305) minutes following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of emergency physician-initiated holding orders can lead to marked reductions in ED LOS for admitted patients. Continued improvement can be demonstrated with an effective performance improvement initiative designed to continuously optimize the process change.

Effect of bedside ultrasonography on the certainty of physician clinical decisionmaking for septic patients in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Sepsis protocols promote aggressive patient management, including invasive procedures. After the provision of point-of-care ultrasonographic markers of volume status and cardiac function, we seek to evaluate changes in emergency physician clinical decisionmaking and physician assessments about the clinical utility of the point-of-care ultrasonographic data when caring for adult sepsis patients. METHODS: For this prospective before-and-after study, patients with suspected sepsis received point-of-care ultrasonography to determine cardiac contractility, inferior vena cava diameter, and inferior vena cava collapsibility. Physician reports of treatment plans, presumed causes of observed vital sign abnormalities, and degree of certainty were compared before and after knowledge of point-of-care ultrasonographic findings. The clinical utility of point-of-care ultrasonographic data was also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-four adult sepsis patients were enrolled: 27 (37%) sepsis, 30 (40%) severe sepsis, 16 (22%) septic shock, and 1 (1%) systemic inflammatory response syndrome. After receipt of point-of-care ultrasonographic data, physicians altered the presumed primary cause of vital sign abnormalities in 12 cases (17% [95% confidence interval {CI} 8% to 25%]) and procedural intervention plans in 20 cases (27% [95% CI 17% to 37%]). Overall treatment plans were changed in 39 cases (53% [95% CI 41% to 64%]). Certainty increased in 47 (71%) cases and decreased in 19 (29%). Measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale, the mean clinical utility score was 65 mm (SD 29; 95% CI 58 to 72), with usefulness reported in all cases. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians found point-of-care ultrasonographic data about cardiac contractility, inferior vena cava diameter, and inferior vena cava collapsibility to be clinically useful in treating adult patients with sepsis. Increased certainty followed acquisition of point-of-care ultrasonographic data in most instances. Point-of-care ultrasonography appears to be a useful modality in evaluating and treating adult sepsis patients.