Association between Goals of Care Designation orders and health care resource use among seriously ill older adults in acute care: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

CMAJ open Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Print Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20210155
Madalene A Earp, Konrad Fassbender, Seema King, Maureen Douglas, Patricia Biondo, Amanda Brisebois, Sara N Davison, Winnie Sia, Eric Wasylenko, LeAnn Esau, Jessica Simon
{"title":"Association between Goals of Care Designation orders and health care resource use among seriously ill older adults in acute care: a multicentre prospective cohort study.","authors":"Madalene A Earp,&nbsp;Konrad Fassbender,&nbsp;Seema King,&nbsp;Maureen Douglas,&nbsp;Patricia Biondo,&nbsp;Amanda Brisebois,&nbsp;Sara N Davison,&nbsp;Winnie Sia,&nbsp;Eric Wasylenko,&nbsp;LeAnn Esau,&nbsp;Jessica Simon","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20210155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Goals of Care Designation (GCD) is a medical order used to communicate the focus of a patient's care in Alberta, Canada. In this study, we aimed to determine the association between GCD type (resuscitative, medical or comfort) and resource use during hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective cohort study of newly hospitalized inpatients in Alberta conducted from January to September 2017. Participants were aged 55 years or older with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, cancer or renal failure; aged 55-79 years and their provider answered \"no\" to the \"surprise question\" (i.e., provider would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 6 months); or aged 80 years or older with any acute condition. The exposure of interest was GCD. The primary outcome was health care resource use during admission, measured by length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit hours, Resource Intensity Weights (RIWs), flagged interventions and palliative care referral. The secondary outcome was 30-day readmission. Adjusted regression analyses were performed (adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Clinical Frailty Scale score, comorbidities and city).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 475 study participants. The median age was 83 (interquartile range 77-87) years, and 93.7% had a GCD at enrolment. Relative to patients with the resuscitative GCD type, patients with the medical GCD type had a longer LOS (1.42 times, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.83) and a higher RIW (adjusted ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Patients with the comfort and medical GCD types had more palliative care referral (comfort GCD adjusted relative risk (RR) 9.32, 95% CI 4.32-20.08; medical GCD adjusted RR 3.58, 95% CI 1.75-7.33) but not flagged intervention use (comfort GCD adjusted RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.49-2.28; medical GCD adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48-2.02) or 30-day readmission (comfort GCD adjusted RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85-1.19; medical GCD adjusted RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.20).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Goals of Care Designation type early during admission was associated with LOS, RIW and palliative care referral. This suggests an alignment between health resource use and the focus of care communicated by each GCD.</p>","PeriodicalId":10432,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":" ","pages":"E945-E955"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bf/06/cmajo.20210155.PMC9633054.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The Goals of Care Designation (GCD) is a medical order used to communicate the focus of a patient's care in Alberta, Canada. In this study, we aimed to determine the association between GCD type (resuscitative, medical or comfort) and resource use during hospitalization.

Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of newly hospitalized inpatients in Alberta conducted from January to September 2017. Participants were aged 55 years or older with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, cancer or renal failure; aged 55-79 years and their provider answered "no" to the "surprise question" (i.e., provider would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 6 months); or aged 80 years or older with any acute condition. The exposure of interest was GCD. The primary outcome was health care resource use during admission, measured by length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit hours, Resource Intensity Weights (RIWs), flagged interventions and palliative care referral. The secondary outcome was 30-day readmission. Adjusted regression analyses were performed (adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Clinical Frailty Scale score, comorbidities and city).

Results: We included 475 study participants. The median age was 83 (interquartile range 77-87) years, and 93.7% had a GCD at enrolment. Relative to patients with the resuscitative GCD type, patients with the medical GCD type had a longer LOS (1.42 times, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.83) and a higher RIW (adjusted ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Patients with the comfort and medical GCD types had more palliative care referral (comfort GCD adjusted relative risk (RR) 9.32, 95% CI 4.32-20.08; medical GCD adjusted RR 3.58, 95% CI 1.75-7.33) but not flagged intervention use (comfort GCD adjusted RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.49-2.28; medical GCD adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48-2.02) or 30-day readmission (comfort GCD adjusted RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85-1.19; medical GCD adjusted RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.20).

Interpretation: Goals of Care Designation type early during admission was associated with LOS, RIW and palliative care referral. This suggests an alignment between health resource use and the focus of care communicated by each GCD.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

危重老年人急症护理中护理指定顺序目标与卫生保健资源使用之间的关系:一项多中心前瞻性队列研究
背景:护理目标指定(GCD)是一个医疗命令,用于沟通的重点病人的护理在加拿大阿尔伯塔省。在本研究中,我们旨在确定住院期间GCD类型(复苏、医疗或舒适)与资源使用之间的关系。方法:这是一项前瞻性队列研究,研究对象是2017年1月至9月在艾伯塔省新住院的住院患者。参与者年龄在55岁或以上,患有慢性阻塞性肺病、充血性心力衰竭、肝硬化、癌症或肾衰竭;年龄55-79岁,提供者对“意外问题”回答“否”(即如果患者在未来6个月内死亡,提供者不会感到惊讶);或八十岁或八十岁以上有急性病者。兴趣的暴露是GCD。主要结局是入院期间的卫生保健资源使用,通过住院时间(LOS)、重症监护病房时间、资源强度权重(RIWs)、标记干预措施和姑息治疗转诊来衡量。次要终点为30天再入院。进行校正回归分析(根据年龄、性别、种族和民族、临床虚弱量表评分、合并症和城市进行校正)。结果:我们纳入了475名研究参与者。中位年龄为83岁(四分位数间距77-87),93.7%的患者入组时患有GCD。与复苏型GCD患者相比,医疗型GCD患者的LOS更长(1.42倍,95%可信区间[CI] 1.10 ~ 1.83), RIW更高(校正比1.14,95% CI 1.02 ~ 1.28)。舒适型和医疗型GCD患者有更多的姑息治疗转诊(舒适型GCD调整相对危险度(RR) 9.32, 95% CI 4.32-20.08;医疗GCD调整RR 3.58, 95% CI 1.75-7.33),但未标记干预使用(舒适GCD调整RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.49-2.28;医疗GCD调整RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48-2.02)或30天再入院(舒适GCD调整RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85-1.19;医学GCD校正RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.20)。解释:入院早期的护理指定目标类型与LOS、RIW和姑息治疗转诊相关。这表明,卫生资源的使用与每项全球战略所传达的护理重点之间存在一致性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信