Early Prevention of Critical Illness in Older Adults: Adaptation and Pilot Testing of an Electronic Risk Score and Checklist.

IF 3 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of Primary Care and Community Health Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/21501319241231238
Christopher L Boswell, Sarah A Minteer, Svetlana Herasevich, Juan P Garcia-Mendez, Yue Dong, Ognjen Gajic, Amelia K Barwise
{"title":"Early Prevention of Critical Illness in Older Adults: Adaptation and Pilot Testing of an Electronic Risk Score and Checklist.","authors":"Christopher L Boswell, Sarah A Minteer, Svetlana Herasevich, Juan P Garcia-Mendez, Yue Dong, Ognjen Gajic, Amelia K Barwise","doi":"10.1177/21501319241231238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given limited critical care resources and an aging population, early interventions to prevent critical illness are vital. In this work, we measured post-implementation outcomes after introducing a novel electronic scoring system (Elders Risk Assessment-ERA) and a risk-factor checklist, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN), to detect older patients at high risk of critical illness in a primary care setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted at a family medicine clinic in Kasson, MN. The ADAPT-ITT framework was used to modify the CERTAIN checklist for primary care during 2 co-design workshops involving interdisciplinary clinicians, held in April 2023. The ERA score and modified CERTAIN checklist were implemented between May and July 2023 and identify and assess all patients age ≥60 years at risk of critical illness during their primary care visits. Implementation outcomes were evaluated at the end of the study via an anonymous survey and EHR data extraction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen clinicians participated in 2 co-design workshops. A total of 19 clinicians participated in a post-pilot survey. All survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. Mean acceptability of the ERA score and checklist was rated 3.35 (SD = 0.75) and 3.09 (SD = 0.64), respectively. Appropriateness had a mean rating of 3.38 (SD = 0.82) for the ERA score and 3.19 (SD = 0.59) for the checklist. Mean feasibility was rated 3.38(SD = 0.85) and 2.92 (SD = 0.76) for the ERA score and checklist, respectively. The adoption rate was 50% (19/38) among clinicians, but the reach was low at 17% (49/289) of eligible patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot study evaluated the implementation of an intervention that introduced the ERA score and CERTAIN checklist into a primary care practice. Results indicate moderate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ERA score, and similar ratings for the checklist, with slightly lower feasibility. While checklist adoption was moderate, reach was limited, indicating inconsistent use.</p><p><strong>Recommendations: </strong>We plan to use the open-ended resurvey responses to further modify the CERTAIN-FM checklist and implementation process. The ADAPT-ITT framework is a useful model for adapting the checklist to meet the primary care clinician needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10863481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319241231238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Given limited critical care resources and an aging population, early interventions to prevent critical illness are vital. In this work, we measured post-implementation outcomes after introducing a novel electronic scoring system (Elders Risk Assessment-ERA) and a risk-factor checklist, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN), to detect older patients at high risk of critical illness in a primary care setting.

Methods: The study was conducted at a family medicine clinic in Kasson, MN. The ADAPT-ITT framework was used to modify the CERTAIN checklist for primary care during 2 co-design workshops involving interdisciplinary clinicians, held in April 2023. The ERA score and modified CERTAIN checklist were implemented between May and July 2023 and identify and assess all patients age ≥60 years at risk of critical illness during their primary care visits. Implementation outcomes were evaluated at the end of the study via an anonymous survey and EHR data extraction.

Results: Fourteen clinicians participated in 2 co-design workshops. A total of 19 clinicians participated in a post-pilot survey. All survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. Mean acceptability of the ERA score and checklist was rated 3.35 (SD = 0.75) and 3.09 (SD = 0.64), respectively. Appropriateness had a mean rating of 3.38 (SD = 0.82) for the ERA score and 3.19 (SD = 0.59) for the checklist. Mean feasibility was rated 3.38(SD = 0.85) and 2.92 (SD = 0.76) for the ERA score and checklist, respectively. The adoption rate was 50% (19/38) among clinicians, but the reach was low at 17% (49/289) of eligible patients.

Conclusions: This pilot study evaluated the implementation of an intervention that introduced the ERA score and CERTAIN checklist into a primary care practice. Results indicate moderate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ERA score, and similar ratings for the checklist, with slightly lower feasibility. While checklist adoption was moderate, reach was limited, indicating inconsistent use.

Recommendations: We plan to use the open-ended resurvey responses to further modify the CERTAIN-FM checklist and implementation process. The ADAPT-ITT framework is a useful model for adapting the checklist to meet the primary care clinician needs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
老年人危重疾病的早期预防:电子风险评分和核对表的改编和试点测试。
目的:鉴于危重病护理资源有限和人口老龄化,早期干预以预防危重病至关重要。在这项研究中,我们测量了引入新型电子评分系统(老年人风险评估系统 Elders Risk Assessment-ERA)和风险因素核对表(急性病早期识别和治疗核对表 CERTAIN)后的实施效果,以便在初级医疗环境中发现危重病高风险老年患者:研究在明尼苏达州卡森市的一家家庭医疗诊所进行。在 2023 年 4 月举行的 2 次跨学科临床医生参与的共同设计研讨会上,使用 ADAPT-ITT 框架修改了适用于初级保健的 CERTAIN 核对表。ERA评分和修改后的CERTAIN核对表于2023年5月至7月期间实施,并在初级保健就诊期间识别和评估所有年龄≥60岁、有危重病风险的患者。研究结束时,通过匿名调查和电子病历数据提取对实施结果进行评估:14名临床医生参加了2次共同设计研讨会。共有 19 名临床医生参与了试点后调查。所有调查项目均采用 5 点李克特量表评分。ERA评分和核对表的平均接受度分别为3.35(SD = 0.75)和3.09(SD = 0.64)。ERA评分的平均适宜度为3.38(标度=0.82),核对表的平均适宜度为3.19(标度=0.59)。ERA评分和核对表的平均可行性评分分别为3.38(SD = 0.85)和2.92(SD = 0.76)。临床医生的采用率为 50%(19/38),但在符合条件的患者中普及率较低,仅为 17%(49/289):这项试点研究评估了将ERA评分和CERTAIN核对表引入初级保健实践的干预措施的实施情况。结果表明,ERA 评分的可接受性、适宜性和可行性适中,核对表的评分相似,可行性略低。虽然核对表的采用率适中,但覆盖范围有限,表明使用不一致:建议:我们计划利用开放式再调查反馈进一步修改 CERTAIN-FM 核对表和实施流程。ADAPT-ITT 框架是调整核对表以满足初级保健临床医生需求的有用模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and Predictors of Post-Acute COVID-19 Symptoms in Italian Primary Care Patients. Lessons Learned From a Community-Based Men's Health Fair. A Real-World Precision Medicine Program Including the KidneyIntelX Test Effectively Changes Management Decisions and Outcomes for Patients With Early-Stage Diabetic Kidney Disease. Emergency Department and Dental Clinic Perceptions of Appropriate, and Preventable, Use of the ED for Non-Traumatic Dental Conditions in Hot-Spot Counties: A Mixed Methods Study. Community Activities in Primary Care: A Literature Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1