Vancouver Gateway Project, Vancouver, Washington

Located in Southwestern Washington, the City of Vancouver’s Downtown and Waterfront districts have experienced a significant transformation during the past five years, resulting in over 900 new homes, and 88,000 and 170,000 square feet of new retail and office space, respectively. This central area is poised for exponential growth over the next 5 years focused along the 32-acre Waterfront Vancouver master plan area. At the heart of the city center is an undeveloped 6.4 acre site that has the potential to seamlessly connect the urban fabric of Vancouver. We view this site not only as an opportunity to connect the City to the Waterfront, but to connect the Waterfront to the City of Vancouver and build around the people of Vancouver and their needs Our proposed Vancouver Gateway does just that. We envision a thriving community with 62,000 square feet of neighborhood retail, 86,000 square feet of office space, a 42,000 square foot fitness club, 348 homes 112 of which being affordable workforce housing, a 9,400 square feet neighborhood dog park, and accessible and abundant district parking for residents, visitors, and workers alike. Over 40,000 square feet of plaza space, pedestrian streets, and walkways weaving throughout the neighborhood will offer people a safe and healthy connectivity to everything VanGate and the surrounding neighborhoods have to offer

Validation of a Geriatric Trauma Prognosis Calculator: A P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. Consortium Study

Background/objectives: The P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. (prognostic assessment of life and limitations after trauma in the elderly) consortium has previously created a prognosis calculator for mortality after geriatric injury based on age, injury severity, and transfusion requirement called the geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS). Here, we sought to create and validate a prognosis calculator called the geriatric trauma outcome score ii (GTOS II) estimating probability of unfavorable discharge. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers. Participants: Trauma admissions aged 65 to 102 years surviving to discharge from 2000 to 2013. Intervention: None. Measurements: Age, injury severity score (ISS), transfusion at 24 hours post-admission, discharge dichotomized as favorable (home/rehabilitation) or unfavorable (skilled nursing/long term acute care/hospice). Training and testing samples were created using the holdout method. A multiple logistic mixed model (GTOS II) was created to estimate the odds of unfavorable disposition then re-specified using the GTOS II as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model using the testing sample. Results: The final dataset was 16,114 subjects (unfavorable discharge status = 15.4%). Training (n = 8,057) and testing (n = 8,057) samples had similar demographics. The formula based on the training sample was (GTOS II = Age + [0.71 × ISS] + 8.79 [if transfused by 24 hours]). Misclassification rate and AUC were 15.63% and 0.67 for the training sample, respectively, and 15.85% and 0.67 for the testing sample. Conclusion: GTOS II estimates the probability of unfavorable discharge in injured elders with moderate accuracy. With the GTOS mortality calculator, it can help in goal setting conversations after geriatric injury

Validation of a Geriatric Trauma Prognosis Calculator: A P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. Consortium Study

Background/objectives: The P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. (prognostic assessment of life and limitations after trauma in the elderly) consortium has previously created a prognosis calculator for mortality after geriatric injury based on age, injury severity, and transfusion requirement called the geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS). Here, we sought to create and validate a prognosis calculator called the geriatric trauma outcome score ii (GTOS II) estimating probability of unfavorable discharge. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers. Participants: Trauma admissions aged 65 to 102 years surviving to discharge from 2000 to 2013. Intervention: None. Measurements: Age, injury severity score (ISS), transfusion at 24 hours post-admission, discharge dichotomized as favorable (home/rehabilitation) or unfavorable (skilled nursing/long term acute care/hospice). Training and testing samples were created using the holdout method. A multiple logistic mixed model (GTOS II) was created to estimate the odds of unfavorable disposition then re-specified using the GTOS II as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model using the testing sample. Results: The final dataset was 16,114 subjects (unfavorable discharge status = 15.4%). Training (n = 8,057) and testing (n = 8,057) samples had similar demographics. The formula based on the training sample was (GTOS II = Age + [0.71 × ISS] + 8.79 [if transfused by 24 hours]). Misclassification rate and AUC were 15.63% and 0.67 for the training sample, respectively, and 15.85% and 0.67 for the testing sample. Conclusion: GTOS II estimates the probability of unfavorable discharge in injured elders with moderate accuracy. With the GTOS mortality calculator, it can help in goal setting conversations after geriatric injury

A Comparison of Prognosis Calculators for Geriatric Trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly Consortium Study

BACKGROUND The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS\u27 performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample. METHODS Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (\u3c55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = −2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (−0.0651 × ISS) + (−1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = −0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (−0.0835 × ISS) + (−1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve. RESULTS Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897. CONCLUSION GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level II

A Comparison of Prognosis Calculators for Geriatric Trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly Consortium Study

BACKGROUND The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS\u27 performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample. METHODS Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (\u3c55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = −2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (−0.0651 × ISS) + (−1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = −0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (−0.0835 × ISS) + (−1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve. RESULTS Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897. CONCLUSION GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level II

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty\u27s ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty\u27s ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients

Background: The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties’ attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty’s ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. Methods: A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Results: Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Conclusions: Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients

Background: The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties’ attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty’s ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. Methods: A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Results: Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Conclusions: Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved