Identification of Hospitalized Patients Who May Benefit from a Serious Illness Conversation Using the Readmission Risk Score Combined with the Surprise Question.

IF 2.3 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety Pub Date : 2024-08-10 DOI:10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.003
Myrna Katalina Serna, Katrina Grace Sadang, Hanna B Vollbrecht, Catherine Yoon, Julie Fiskio, Joshua R Lakin, Anuj K Dalal, Jeffrey L Schnipper
{"title":"Identification of Hospitalized Patients Who May Benefit from a Serious Illness Conversation Using the Readmission Risk Score Combined with the Surprise Question.","authors":"Myrna Katalina Serna, Katrina Grace Sadang, Hanna B Vollbrecht, Catherine Yoon, Julie Fiskio, Joshua R Lakin, Anuj K Dalal, Jeffrey L Schnipper","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining which patients benefit from a serious illness conversation (SIC) is challenging. The authors sought to determine whether Epic's Risk of Readmission Score (RRS), could be combined with a simple, validated, one-question mortality prognostic screen (the surprise question: Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next 12 months?) to identify hospitalized patients with SIC needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, the authors randomly selected encounters for patients ≥ 18 years of age to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 who had an RRS > 28%. Two adjudicators independently performed chart reviews for each encounter to answer the surprise question to create two distinct prognostic groups (yes vs. no). Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistically significant differences in standardized documentation of SICs between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 2,879 encounters, 202 patient encounters were randomly selected. Adjudicators answered \"no\" to the surprise question for 156 (77.2%) patients. Patients for whom adjudicators answered \"no\" were generally older with higher comorbidity and more often had standardized documentation of a SIC (14 [9.0%] vs. 0.[0.0%], p = 0.042) compared to patients for whom adjudicators answered \"yes.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Approximately three quarters of patients with a high RRS were predicted to have a lifespan of less than a year. Although these patients were significantly more likely to have a SIC, rates of SICs were extremely low. Combining available electronic health record (EHR) data with a simple one-question screening tool may help identify hospitalized patients who require a SIC in quality improvement initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":14835,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Determining which patients benefit from a serious illness conversation (SIC) is challenging. The authors sought to determine whether Epic's Risk of Readmission Score (RRS), could be combined with a simple, validated, one-question mortality prognostic screen (the surprise question: Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next 12 months?) to identify hospitalized patients with SIC needs.

Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors randomly selected encounters for patients ≥ 18 years of age to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 who had an RRS > 28%. Two adjudicators independently performed chart reviews for each encounter to answer the surprise question to create two distinct prognostic groups (yes vs. no). Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistically significant differences in standardized documentation of SICs between groups.

Results: Out of 2,879 encounters, 202 patient encounters were randomly selected. Adjudicators answered "no" to the surprise question for 156 (77.2%) patients. Patients for whom adjudicators answered "no" were generally older with higher comorbidity and more often had standardized documentation of a SIC (14 [9.0%] vs. 0.[0.0%], p = 0.042) compared to patients for whom adjudicators answered "yes."

Conclusion: Approximately three quarters of patients with a high RRS were predicted to have a lifespan of less than a year. Although these patients were significantly more likely to have a SIC, rates of SICs were extremely low. Combining available electronic health record (EHR) data with a simple one-question screening tool may help identify hospitalized patients who require a SIC in quality improvement initiatives.

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
使用再入院风险评分与惊喜问题相结合,识别可能受益于重症谈话的住院患者。
背景:确定哪些患者可以从重症疾病谈话(SIC)中获益是一项挑战。作者试图确定 Epic 的再入院风险评分(RRS)是否能与简单、有效、一问式死亡率预后筛查(惊喜问题:如果患者在未来 12 个月内死亡,您会感到惊讶吗?如果病人在未来 12 个月内死亡,您会感到惊讶吗?),以识别有 SIC 需求的住院病人:在这项回顾性研究中,作者随机选取了 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 10 月期间在全科医学服务机构就诊的年龄≥18 岁、RRS > 28% 的患者。两名评审员独立对每个病例进行病历审查,回答突发性问题,以创建两个不同的预后组(是与否)。采用费雪精确检验来评估各组之间 SIC 标准化记录的统计学差异:在 2,879 个病例中,随机抽取了 202 个病例。有 156 名患者(77.2%)的意外问题回答 "否"。与裁决者回答 "是 "的患者相比,裁决者回答 "否 "的患者一般年龄较大,合并症较多,且有标准化 SIC 文档的患者较多(14 [9.0%] vs. 0.[0.0%], p = 0.042):RRS较高的患者中,约有四分之三预计寿命不足一年。虽然这些患者发生SIC的几率明显更高,但SIC的发生率极低。将现有的电子健康记录(EHR)数据与简单的一问一答筛查工具相结合,可能有助于在质量改进措施中识别需要SIC的住院患者。
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
3.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
49 days
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 50th Anniversary Article Collections: Diagnostic Excellence Supporting Professionalism in a Crisis Requires Leadership and a Well-Developed Plan. Protecting Parkinson's Patients: Hospital Care Standards to Avoid Preventable Harm.
×
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