A general medical short-stay unit is not more efficient than a traditional model of care

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator validity in South Australian laryngectomy patients

BACKGROUND

Assessing an individual patient's post-operative risk profile prior to laryngectomy for cancer is difficult. The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) risk calculator was developed to better inform preoperative decision-making. The calculator uses patient-specific characteristics to estimate the risk of experiencing post-operative complications within 30 days of surgery. We investigated the ACS-NSQIP risk calculator's performance for Australian laryngectomy patients.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP risk calculator was used to retrospectively calculate the 30-day post-operative predicted outcomes in patients who underwent laryngectomy for laryngeal, hypopharyngeal and thyroid cancers (with laryngeal involvement) in two institutions in South Australia. These data were compared against the actual mortality, morbidity, complications and length of stay (LOS) collected from a retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients underwent surgical intervention for malignancies with laryngeal involvement. The median LOS was 25 days (range 13-197) compared to the predicted LOS of 6.5 days (range 3.5-12.5). Overall mortality was 2.78% with post-operative complications occurring in 63% of patients. The most common complication was wound infection, occurring in 33% of patients. Hosmer-Lemeshow plots demonstrated good agreement between predicted and observed rates for complications.

CONCLUSION

The ACS-NSQIP risk calculator effectively predicted post-operative complication rates in South Australian laryngeal cancer patients undergoing laryngectomy. However, differences in predicted and actual LOS may limit the usefulness of the calculator's LOS predictions for Australian patients.

Short-stay unit hospitalisation vs. standard care outcomes in older internal medicine patients-a randomised clinical trial

Background

the effect of hospitalisation in emergency department-based short-stay units (SSUs) has not been studied in older patients. We compared SSU hospitalisation with standard care at an Internal Medicine Department (IMD) in acutely admitted older internal medicine patients.

Methods

pragmatic randomised clinical trial. We randomly assigned patients aged 75 years or older, acutely admitted for an internal medicine disease and assessed to be suitable for SSU hospitalisation to SSU hospitalisation or IMD hospitalisation. SSU hospitalisation was provided by a pragmatic 'fast-track' principle. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, change in Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score within 90 days from admission, in-hospital length of stay and unplanned readmissions within 30 days after discharge.

Results

between January 2015 and October 2016, 430 participants were randomised (median age 84 years in both groups). Ninety-day mortality was 22(11%) in the SSU group and 32(15%) in the IMD group (odds ratio (OR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-1.18; P = 0.16). When comparing the SSU group to the IMD group, 16(8%) vs. 45(21%) experienced at least one adverse event (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.17-0.56; P < 0.001); 6(3%) vs. 35(20%) experienced a reduction in IADL score within 90 days from admission (P < 0.001); median in-hospital length of stay was 73 h [interquartile range, IQR 36-147] vs. 100 h [IQR 47-169], (P < 0.001), and 26(13%) vs. 58(29%) were readmitted (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.22-0.61; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

mortality at 90 days after admission was not significantly lower in the SSU group, but SSU hospitalisation was associated with a lower risk of adverse events, less functional decline, fewer readmissions and shorter hospital stay.

Trial registration

NCT02395718.

Hospitalisation in short-stay units for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions

BACKGROUND

Short-stay units are hospital units that provide short-term care for selected patients. Studies have indicated that short-stay units might reduce admission rates, time of hospital stays, hospital readmissions and expenditure without compromising the quality of care. Short-stay units are often defined by a target patient category, a target function, and a target time frame. Hypothetically, short-stay units could be established as part of any department, but this review focuses on short-stay units that provide care for participants with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess beneficial and harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation compared with usual care in people with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to 13 December 2017 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several grey literature sources and performed a forward citation search for included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials, comparing hospitalisation in a short-stay unit with usual care (hospitalisation in a traditional hospital ward or other services). We defined a short-stay unit to be a hospital ward where the targeted length of stay in hospital for patients was five days or less. We included both multipurpose and specialised short-stay units. Participants were adults admitted to hospital with an internal medicine disease or condition. We excluded surgical, obstetric, psychiatric, gynaecological, and ambulatory participants. Trials were included irrespective of publication status, date, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. We measured intervention effect sizes by meta-analyses for two primary outcomes, mortality and serious adverse events, and one secondary outcome, hospital readmission. We narratively reported the following important outcomes: quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs. We used risk ratio differences of 15% for mortality and of 20% for serious adverse events for minimal relevant clinical consideration. We rated the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations of the outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 records reporting on 14 randomised trials with a total of 2872 participants. One trial was ongoing. Thirteen trials evaluated short-stay unit hospitalisation for six specific conditions (acute decompensated heart failure (one trial), asthma (one trial), atrial fibrillation (one trial), chest pain (seven trials), syncope (two trials), and transient ischaemic attack (one trial)) and one trial investigated participants presenting with miscellaneous internal medicine disease and conditions. The components of the intervention differed among the trials as dictated by the trial participants' condition. All included trials were at high risk of bias.The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether hospitalisation in short-stay units compared with usual care reduces mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.15) 5 trials (seven additional trials reporting on 1299 participants reported no deaths in either group)); serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.54; 7 trials (one additional trial with 108 participants reported no serious adverse events in either group)), and hospital readmission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19, 8 trials (one additional trial with 424 participants did not report results for participants)). There was not enough information to confirm or refute that short-stay unit hospitalisation had relevant effects on quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quantity and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether there are any beneficial or harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions - more trials comparing the effects of short-stay units with usual care are needed. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors to improve the overall confidence in the evidence.

Validity of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator in South Australian glossectomy patients

Background:

Appropriate selection of tongue cancer patients considering surgery is critical in ensuring optimal outcomes. The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (‘ACS-NSQIP’) risk calculator was developed to assess patients' 30-day post-operative risk, providing surgeons with information to guide decision making.

Method:

A retrospective review of 30-day actual mortality and morbidity of tongue cancer patients was undertaken to investigate the validity of this tool for South Australian patients treated from 2005 to 2015.

Results:

One hundred and twenty patients had undergone glossectomy. Predicted length of stay using the risk calculator was significantly different from actual length of stay. Predicted mortality and other complications were found to be similar to actual outcomes.

Conclusion:

The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator was found to be effective in predicting post-operative complication rates in South Australian tongue cancer patients. However, significant discrepancies in predicted and actual length of stay may limit its use in this population.

Alternatives to ward admission from the emergency department

There is ever-increasing pressure on hospital resources in general and emergency departments (ED) in particular. At the same time, there is increasing recognition that traditional inpatient ward-based care is not necessary for the majority of children presenting to the ED with acute illness, and that there are patient, family and hospital benefits to pursuing other options. Here, we describe alternative pathways for children presenting to the ED, including short stay and observational medicine, hospital-in-the-home and non-admission enhanced care, in other words, additional management practices or pathways for children who are discharged from the ED. We discuss the principles, models and practical considerations involved in each of these.

Can the simple clinical score usefully predict the mortality risk and length of stay for a recently admitted patient?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to determine whether an aggregate simple clinical score (SCS) has a role in predicting the imminent mortality and in-hospital length of stay (LOS) of newly admitted, acutely unwell General Medical in-patients.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from adult patients admitted through an Acute Medical Unit between February and August 2013. Using logistic regression analysis before and after adjustment for age, the SCS was assessed for its association with LOS and mortality, including 30-day mortality, just for those patients for full resuscitation. Changes in sensitivity and specificity after adding SCS to age as a predictor, as well as the change in the net reclassification index, were determined using the predicted probabilities from the logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The SCS was superior to age in predicting mortality of any patient within 30 days. It did not assist in predicting 30-day mortality for those patients who were for full resuscitation. The ability of the SCS to predict long stay (> 72h) remained relatively low (64%) and was inferior to published rates achieved by bedside clinician assessment (74%-82%).

CONCLUSION

There was no useful prospective role for the SCS in predicting LOS and mortality of in-patients newly admitted to a General Medicine service.