The Application of the CRASH-CT Prognostic Model for Older Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Population-Based Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) trial prognostic model in older patients with traumatic brain injury. SETTING: The National Study on Costs and Outcomes of Trauma cohort, established at 69 hospitals in the United States in 2001 and 2002. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with traumatic brain injury and an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or less. DESIGN: The CRASH-CT model predicting death within 14 days was deployed in all patients. Model performance in older patients (aged 65-84 years) was compared with that in younger patients (aged 18-64 years). MAIN MEASURES: Model discrimination (as defined by the c-statistic) and calibration (as defined by the Hosmer-Lemeshow P value). RESULTS: CRASH-CT model discrimination was not significantly different between the older (n = 356; weighted n = 524) and younger patients (n = 981; weighted n = 2602) and was generally adequate (c-statistic 0.83 vs 0.87, respectively; P = .11). CRASH-CT model calibration was adequate for the older patients and inadequate for younger patients (Hosmer-Lemeshow P values .12 and .001, respectively), possibly reflecting differences in sample size. Calibration-in-the-large showed no systematic under- or overprediction in either stratum. CONCLUSION: The CRASH-CT model may be valid for use in a geriatric population.

The application of IMPACT prognostic models to elderly adults with traumatic brain injury: A population-based observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the International Mission for Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) prognostic models in older patients. METHODS: Using data from the National Study on Costs and Outcomes of Trauma (NSCOT), this study identified adult patients presenting to US hospitals in 2001 and 2002 with non-penetrating moderate or severe traumatic brain injury (GCS ≤ 12). IMPACT model calibration and discrimination in the older stratum (65-84 years) was compared to that in the younger stratum (18-64 years). RESULTS: IMPACT model discrimination did not differ significantly between the older (n = 202; weighted n = 268) and younger strata (n = 613; weighted n = 1632) and was generally adequate (c-statistic for the core-death model = 0.81 [0.77-0.84] vs 0.75 [0.66-0.84], respectively; p = 0.26). IMPACT model calibration was poor for both older and younger strata (Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value for the core-death model = 0.01 vs < 0.0001, respectively). Pre-specified qualitative graphical evaluation suggested substantial under-prediction of mortality in the oldest decades of life, but not among younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: The examined IMPACT prognostic models demonstrated adequate discrimination and poor calibration in both older and younger patients, yet particular caution may be required when applying these models to the elderly.

Preventing hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism: Improving patient safety with interdisciplinary teamwork, quality improvement analytics, and data transparency.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) is a potentially preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Despite high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in accordance with an institutional guideline, VTE remains the most common hospital-acquired condition in our institution. OBJECTIVE: To improve the safety of all hospitalized patients, examine current VTE prevention practices, identify opportunities for improvement, and decrease rates of HA-VTE. DESIGN: Pre/post assessment. SETTING/PATIENTS: Urban academic tertiary referral center, level 1 trauma center, safety net hospital; all patients. INTERVENTION: We formed a multidisciplinary VTE task force to review all HA-VTE events, assess prevention practices relative to evidence-based institutional guidelines, and identify improvement opportunities. The task force developed an electronic tool to facilitate efficient VTE event review and designed decision-support and reporting tools, now integrated into the electronic health record, to bring optimal VTE prevention practices to the point of care. Performance is shared transparently across the institution. MEASUREMENTS: Harborview benchmarks process and outcome performance, including patient safety indicators and core measures, against hospitals nationally using Hospital Compare and Vizient data. RESULTS: Our program has resulted in >90% guideline-adherent VTE prevention and zero preventable HA-VTEs. Initiatives have resulted in a 15% decrease in HA-VTE and a 21% reduction in postoperative VTE. CONCLUSIONS: Keys to success include the multidisciplinary approach, clinical roles of task force members, senior leadership support, and use of quality improvement analytics for retrospective review, prospective reporting, and performance transparency. Ongoing task force collaboration with frontline providers is critical to sustained improvements. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:S38-S43. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Opportunity lost: end-of-life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life discussions are associated with decreased use of life-sustaining treatments in patients dying of cancer in the outpatient setting, but little is known about discussions that take place during terminal hospitalizations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients assessed by the clinical team to have decisional capacity on admission, how many of these patients participated or had a surrogate participate in a discussion about end-of-life care, and whether patient participation was associated with treatments received. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Inpatient. PATIENTS: Adult patients with advanced cancer who died in the hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007. RESULTS: Of the 145 inpatients meeting inclusion criteria, 115 patients (79%) were documented to have decisional capacity on admission. Among these patients, 46 (40%) were documented to lose decisional capacity prior to an end-of-life discussion and had the discussion held instead by a surrogate. Patients who had surrogate participation in the end-of-life discussions were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (56.5% vs 23.2%, P < 0.01), artificial nutrition (45.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.03), chemotherapy (39.1% vs 5.4%, P <0.01), and intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (56.5% vs 23.2%, P <0.01) compared to patients who participated in discussions. There was no difference between palliative treatments received. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with advanced cancer are considered to have decisional capacity at the time of their terminal hospitalization. Many lose decisional capacity before having an end-of-life discussion and have surrogate decision-makers participate in these discussions. These patients received more aggressive life-sustaining treatments prior to death and represent a missed opportunity to improve end-of-life care.