Association between frailty and short- and long-term outcomes among critically ill patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a multidimensional syndrome characterized by loss of physiologic and cognitive reserves that confers vulnerability to adverse outcomes. We determined the prevalence, correlates and outcomes associated with frailty among adults admitted to intensive care. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 421 critically ill adults aged 50 or more at 6 hospitals across the province of Alberta. The primary exposure was frailty, defined by a score greater than 4 on the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events, 1-year mortality and quality of life. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty was 32.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.3%-37.5%). Frail patients were older, were more likely to be female, and had more comorbidities and greater functional dependence than those who were not frail. In-hospital mortality was higher among frail patients than among non-frail patients (32% v. 16%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.81, 95% CI 1.09-3.01) and remained higher at 1 year (48% v. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.28-2.60). Major adverse events were more common among frail patients (39% v. 29%; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.01-2.37). Compared with nonfrail survivors, frail survivors were more likely to become functionally dependent (71% v. 52%; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.03-4.89), had significantly lower quality of life and were more often readmitted to hospital (56% v. 39%; OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.22-3.23) in the 12 months following enrolment. INTERPRETATION: Frailty was common among critically ill adults aged 50 and older and identified a population at increased risk of adverse events, morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of frailty could improve prognostication and identify a vulnerable population that might benefit from follow-up and intervention.

Evidence for quality indicators to evaluate adult trauma care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple quality indicators are available to evaluate adult trauma care, but their characteristics and outcomes have not been systematically compared. We sought to systematically review the evidence about the reliability, validity, and implementation of quality indicators for evaluating trauma care. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 14, 2009; the Gray Literature; select journals by hand; reference lists; and articles recommended by experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected that evaluated the reliability, validity, or the impact of one or more quality indicators on the quality of care delivered to patients ≥ 18 yrs of age with a major traumatic injury. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers with methodologic and content expertise conducted data extraction independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment; 40 articles were selected for review. Of these, 20 (50%) articles were cohort studies and 13 (33%) articles were case series. Five articles used control groups, including three before and after case series, a case-control study, and a nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 115 quality indicators in adult trauma care was identified, predominantly measures of hospital processes (62%) and outcomes (17%) of care. We did not identify any posthospital or secondary injury prevention quality indicators. Reliability was described for two quality indicators, content validity for 22 quality indicators, construct validity for eight quality indicators, and criterion validity for 46 quality indicators. A total of 58 quality indicators was implemented and evaluated in three studies. Eight quality indicators had supporting evidence for more than one measurement domain. A single quality indicator, peer review for preventable death, had both reliability and validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although many quality indicators are available to measure the quality of trauma care, reliability evidence, validity evidence, and description of outcomes after implementation are limited.

A systematic review of quality indicators for evaluating pediatric trauma care.

OBJECTIVE: Trauma care provides injured children with life- and limb-saving treatment, but it is unclear if the proper tools have been developed to measure the quality of care delivered. We sought to systematically review the literature on quality indicators for evaluating pediatric trauma care. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE (1950- January 14, 2009), EMBASE (1980-week 2, 2009), CINAHL (1982- week 2, 2009) and The Cochrane Library (4th Quarter 2008) from the earliest available date to January 14, 2009, plus the Gray Literature, select journals by hand, reference lists, and articles recommended by experts in the field. Studies were selected that used one or more quality indicators to evaluate the quality of care delivered to patients 18 yrs of age or younger with a major traumatic injury. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment; 12 articles were selected for review. Of these, five (42%) articles were case series and five (42%) articles were cohort studies. Two articles included control groups, a before-and-after case series, and a nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 120 quality indicators in pediatric trauma care were identified, predominantly measures of prehospital and hospital processes and outcomes of care. We did not identify any prehospital structure or posthospital or secondary injury prevention quality indicators. Among multiple trauma patients, deficiencies in the quality of care ranged from 8% to 45% of patients, with 6% to 32% of deaths in hospital judged to be preventable on peer review. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited experimental research regarding quality indicators in pediatric trauma care, but the literature suggests that deficiencies exist in the quality of care. Future research is needed to develop and evaluate patient-centered pediatric-specific indicators that cover the full spectrum of trauma care.

Quality indicators for evaluating trauma care: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature on quality indicators (QIs) for evaluating trauma care, identify QIs, map their definitions, and examine the evidence base in support of the QIs. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through January 14, 2009. To increase the sensitivity of the search, we also searched the grey literature and select journals by hand, reviewed reference lists to identify additional studies, and contacted experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We selected all articles that identified or proposed 1 or more QIs to evaluate the quality of care delivered to patients with major traumatic injuries. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of 1 or more QIs designed to evaluate patients with major traumatic injuries (defined as multisystem injuries resulting in hospitalization or death) and focused on prehospital care, hospital care, posthospital care, or secondary injury prevention. DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment, of which 192 articles were selected for review. Of these, 128 (66.7%) articles were original research, predominantly trauma database case series (57 [29.7%]) and cohort studies (55 [28.6%]), whereas 37 (19.3%) were narrative reviews and 8 (4.2%) were guidelines. A total of 1572 QIs in trauma care were identified and classified into 8 categories: non-American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) audit filters (42.0%), ACS-COT audit filters (19.1%), patient safety indicators (13.2%), trauma center/system criteria (10.2%), indicators measuring or benchmarking outcomes of care (7.4%), peer review (5.5%), general audit measures (1.8%), and guideline availability or adherence (0.8%). Measures of prehospital and hospital processes (60.4%) and outcomes (22.8%) were the most common QIs identified. Posthospital and secondary injury prevention QIs accounted for less than 5% of QIs. CONCLUSIONS: Many QIs for evaluating the quality of trauma care have been proposed, but the evidence to support these indicators is not strong. Practical recommendations to select QIs to measure the quality of trauma care will require systematic reviews of identified candidate indicators and empirical studies to fill the knowledge gaps for postacute QIs.