老年外科患者的脑健康筛查:一项多中心、回顾性、观察性分析和调查。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Alexander T Abess, Nirav J Shah, Elizabeth L Whitlock, Hedwig Schroeck, Donna Ron, Sandra Becker Rozek, Pablo Martinez-Camblor, Anne L Donovan, Katie J Schenning, Stacie G Deiner
{"title":"老年外科患者的脑健康筛查:一项多中心、回顾性、观察性分析和调查。","authors":"Alexander T Abess, Nirav J Shah, Elizabeth L Whitlock, Hedwig Schroeck, Donna Ron, Sandra Becker Rozek, Pablo Martinez-Camblor, Anne L Donovan, Katie J Schenning, Stacie G Deiner","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines recommend routine screening perioperatively for cognitive impairment, frailty, and delirium for patients at risk. Capturing these 3 geriatric screening variables in multicenter databases would also enable much-needed large-scale pragmatic research. Our primary hypothesis was that the well-curated Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database would have a low rate of retrievable geriatric screening variables. Our secondary hypothesis was that multiple barriers exist that impede clinical implementation of recommended screenings as well as the digital capture of these variables into the MPOG database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a 2-component study. The first component was a retrospective observational analysis using the MPOG database to identify geriatric screening variables in patients over the age of 65 undergoing nonemergent inpatient surgery. The second component was a survey sent to MPOG participant sites (49 institutions) to assess actual screening practices and perspectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 908,158 relevant patient records only 8054 (0.89%) were identified as having a preoperative cognitive screen, and 123,114 (13.6%) were identified as having a postoperative delirium screening. No frailty screenings were observed. Forty-3 survey responses (88% response rate) were received. Approximately half of the respondents indicated their institutions perform cognitive screening (n=22; 51.2%), frailty screening (n=17; 44.7%), or delirium screening (n = 16; 45.7%). Only 10 institutions (23.2%) reported performing all 3, and 13 (30.2%) institutions reported performing none. Multiple barriers were identified. The most common significant barrier reported was a lack of available standard screening tools for the electronic health record.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified minimal data collection related to neurocognitive disorders which appears incongruous with clinical practice guidelines. Challenges related to capturing this data locally and in multi-center datasets were identified. Overcoming those barriers may facilitate future pragmatic research studies related to this important public health priority.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brain Health Screening in Older Surgical Patients: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Analysis and Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander T Abess, Nirav J Shah, Elizabeth L Whitlock, Hedwig Schroeck, Donna Ron, Sandra Becker Rozek, Pablo Martinez-Camblor, Anne L Donovan, Katie J Schenning, Stacie G Deiner\",\"doi\":\"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007557\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines recommend routine screening perioperatively for cognitive impairment, frailty, and delirium for patients at risk. Capturing these 3 geriatric screening variables in multicenter databases would also enable much-needed large-scale pragmatic research. Our primary hypothesis was that the well-curated Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database would have a low rate of retrievable geriatric screening variables. Our secondary hypothesis was that multiple barriers exist that impede clinical implementation of recommended screenings as well as the digital capture of these variables into the MPOG database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a 2-component study. The first component was a retrospective observational analysis using the MPOG database to identify geriatric screening variables in patients over the age of 65 undergoing nonemergent inpatient surgery. The second component was a survey sent to MPOG participant sites (49 institutions) to assess actual screening practices and perspectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 908,158 relevant patient records only 8054 (0.89%) were identified as having a preoperative cognitive screen, and 123,114 (13.6%) were identified as having a postoperative delirium screening. No frailty screenings were observed. Forty-3 survey responses (88% response rate) were received. Approximately half of the respondents indicated their institutions perform cognitive screening (n=22; 51.2%), frailty screening (n=17; 44.7%), or delirium screening (n = 16; 45.7%). Only 10 institutions (23.2%) reported performing all 3, and 13 (30.2%) institutions reported performing none. Multiple barriers were identified. The most common significant barrier reported was a lack of available standard screening tools for the electronic health record.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified minimal data collection related to neurocognitive disorders which appears incongruous with clinical practice guidelines. Challenges related to capturing this data locally and in multi-center datasets were identified. Overcoming those barriers may facilitate future pragmatic research studies related to this important public health priority.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007557\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007557","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:指南推荐高危患者围手术期常规筛查认知障碍、虚弱和谵妄。在多中心数据库中捕获这三个老年筛查变量也将使急需的大规模实用研究成为可能。我们的主要假设是,精心设计的多中心围手术期预后组(MPOG)数据库具有较低的可检索老年筛查变量率。我们的第二个假设是,存在多种障碍,阻碍了推荐筛查的临床实施,以及将这些变量数字化捕获到MPOG数据库中。方法:采用双组分研究。第一部分是使用MPOG数据库进行回顾性观察分析,以确定65岁以上接受非急诊住院手术的患者的老年筛查变量。第二个组成部分是向MPOG参与站点(49个机构)发送的一项调查,以评估实际的筛选做法和观点。结果:在908,158例相关患者记录中,只有8054例(0.89%)被确定为术前认知筛查,123,114例(13.6%)被确定为术后谵妄筛查。未观察到虚弱筛查。共收到问卷答复43份,回复率88%。大约一半的受访者表示,他们的机构进行认知筛查(n=22;51.2%),虚弱筛查(n=17;44.7%)或谵妄筛查(n = 16;45.7%)。只有10所(23.2%)机构报告全部执行了这3项,13所(30.2%)机构报告没有执行。确定了多种障碍。报告中最常见的重大障碍是缺乏可用的标准电子健康记录筛查工具。结论:本研究确定了与临床实践指南不一致的神经认知障碍相关的最小数据收集。确定了在本地和多中心数据集中捕获这些数据的挑战。克服这些障碍可能有助于今后与这一重要公共卫生优先事项有关的务实研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brain Health Screening in Older Surgical Patients: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Analysis and Survey.

Background: Guidelines recommend routine screening perioperatively for cognitive impairment, frailty, and delirium for patients at risk. Capturing these 3 geriatric screening variables in multicenter databases would also enable much-needed large-scale pragmatic research. Our primary hypothesis was that the well-curated Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database would have a low rate of retrievable geriatric screening variables. Our secondary hypothesis was that multiple barriers exist that impede clinical implementation of recommended screenings as well as the digital capture of these variables into the MPOG database.

Methods: This was a 2-component study. The first component was a retrospective observational analysis using the MPOG database to identify geriatric screening variables in patients over the age of 65 undergoing nonemergent inpatient surgery. The second component was a survey sent to MPOG participant sites (49 institutions) to assess actual screening practices and perspectives.

Results: Of the 908,158 relevant patient records only 8054 (0.89%) were identified as having a preoperative cognitive screen, and 123,114 (13.6%) were identified as having a postoperative delirium screening. No frailty screenings were observed. Forty-3 survey responses (88% response rate) were received. Approximately half of the respondents indicated their institutions perform cognitive screening (n=22; 51.2%), frailty screening (n=17; 44.7%), or delirium screening (n = 16; 45.7%). Only 10 institutions (23.2%) reported performing all 3, and 13 (30.2%) institutions reported performing none. Multiple barriers were identified. The most common significant barrier reported was a lack of available standard screening tools for the electronic health record.

Conclusions: This study identified minimal data collection related to neurocognitive disorders which appears incongruous with clinical practice guidelines. Challenges related to capturing this data locally and in multi-center datasets were identified. Overcoming those barriers may facilitate future pragmatic research studies related to this important public health priority.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信