0 avis
Geriatric end-of-life screening tool prediction of 6-month mortality in older patients
Article indépendant
IMPORTANCE: Emergency department (ED) visits by older adults with life-limiting illnesses are a critical opportunity to establish patient care end-of-life preferences, but little is known about the optimal screening criteria for resource-constrained EDs.
OBJECTIVES: To externally validate the Geriatric End-of-Life Screening Tool (GEST) in an independent population and compare it with commonly used serious illness diagnostic criteria.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prognostic study assessed a cohort of patients aged 65 years and older who were treated in a tertiary care ED in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2017 to 2021. Patients arriving in cardiac arrest or who died within 1 day of ED arrival were excluded. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2023, to March 27, 2024.
EXPOSURE: GEST, a logistic regression algorithm that uses commonly available electronic health record (EHR) datapoints and was developed and validated across 9 EDs, was compared with serious illness diagnoses as documented in the EHR. Serious illnesses included stroke/transient ischemic attack, liver disease, cancer, lung disease, and age greater than 80 years, among others.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-month mortality following an ED encounter. Statistical analyses included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration analyses, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and decision curves.
RESULTS: This external validation included 82 371 ED encounters by 40 505 unique individuals (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [8.4] years; 54.3% women, 13.8% 6-month mortality rate). GEST had an external validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.78-0.79) that was stable across years and demographic subgroups. Of included encounters, 53.4% had a serious illness, with a sensitivity of 77.4% (95% CI, 76.6%-78.2%) and specificity of 50.5% (95% CI, 50.1%-50.8%). Varying GEST cutoffs from 5% to 30% increased specificity (5%: 49.1% [95% CI, 48.7%-49.5%]; 30%: 92.2% [95% CI, 92.0%-92.4%]) at the cost of sensitivity (5%: 89.3% [95% CI, 88.8-89.9]; 30%: 36.2% [95% CI, 35.3-37.1]). In a decision curve analysis, GEST outperformed serious illness criteria across all tested thresholds. When comparing patients referred to intervention by GEST with serious illness criteria, GEST reclassified 45.1% of patients with serious illness as having low risk of mortality with an observed mortality rate 8.1% and 2.6% of patients without serious illness as having high mortality risk with an observed mortality rate of 34.3% for a total reclassification rate of 25.3%.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that both serious illness criteria and GEST identified older ED patients at risk for 6-month mortality, but GEST offered more useful screening characteristics. Future trials of serious illness interventions for high mortality risk in older adults may consider transitioning from diagnosis code criteria to GEST, an automatable EHR-based algorithm.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.14213
Voir la revue «JAMA network open, 7»
Autres numéros de la revue «JAMA network open»
Consulter en ligne
Suggestions
Du même auteur
De la même série