Care pathways in older patients seen in a multidisciplinary same day emergency care (SDEC) unit

Background: Same day emergency care (SDEC) services are being advocated in the UK for frail, older patients in whom hospitalisation may be associated with harm but there are few data on the ‘ambulatory pathway’. We therefore determined the patient pathways pre- and post-first assessment in a SDEC unit focussed on older people. Methods: In consecutive patients, we prospectively recorded follow-up SDEC service reviews (face-to-face, telephone, Hospital-at-Home domiciliary visits), outpatient referrals (e.g. to specialist clinics, imaging, and community/voluntary/social services), and hospital admissions <30 days. In the first 67 patients, we also recorded healthcare interactions (except GP attendances) in the 180 days pre- and post-first assessment. Results: Among 533 patients (mean/SD age = 75.0/17.5 years, 246, 46% deemed frail) assessed in an SDEC unit, 210 were admitted within 30 days (152 immediately). In the 381(71%) remaining initially ambulatory, there were 587 SDEC follow-up reviews and 747 other outpatient referrals (mean = 3.5 per patient) with only 34 (9%) patients being discharged with no further follow-up. In the subset (n = 67), the number of ‘healthcare days’ was greater in the 180 days post- versus pre-SDEC assessment (mean/SD = 26/27 versus 13/22 days, P = 0.003) even after excluding hospital admission days, with greater healthcare days in frail versus non-frail patients. Discussion and Conclusion: SDEC assessment in older, frail patients was associated with a 2-fold increase in frequency of healthcare interactions with complex care pathways involving multiple services. Our findings have implications for the development of admission-avoidance models including cost-effectiveness and optimal delivery of the multi-dimensional aspects of acute geriatric care in the ambulatory setting

Managing Patients With Heart Failure: A Qualitative Study of Multidisciplinary Teams With Specialist Heart Failure Nurses

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of health care clinicians working in multidisciplinary teams that include specialist heart failure nurses when caring for the management of heart failure patients. METHODS We used a qualitative in-depth interview study nested in a broader ethnographic study of unplanned admissions in heart failure patients (HoldFAST). We interviewed 24 health care clinicians across primary, secondary, and community care in 3 locations in the Midlands, South Central, and South West of England. RESULTS Within a framework of the role and contribution of the heart failure specialist nurse, our study identified 2 thematic areas that the clinicians agreed still represent particular challenges when working with heart failure patients. The first was communication with patients, in particular explaining the diagnosis and helping patients to understand the condition. The participants recognized that such communication was most effective when they had a long-term relationship with patients and families and that the specialist nurse played an important part in achieving this relationship. The second was communication within the team. Multidisciplinary input was especially needed because of the complexity of many patients and issues around medications, and the participants believed the specialist nurse may facilitate team communication. CONCLUSIONS The study highlights the role of specialist heart failure nurses in delivering education tailored to patients and facilitating better liaison among all clinicians, particularly when dealing with the management of comorbidities and drug regimens. The way in which specialist nurses were able to be caseworkers for their patients was perceived as a method of ensuring coordination and continuity of care

Factors associated with admission to bed-based care : observational prospective cohort study in a multidisciplinary same day emergency care unit (SDEC)

Background. The development of ambulatory emergency care services, now called ‘Same Day Emergency Care’ (SDEC) has been advocated to provide sustainable high quality healthcare in an ageing population. However, there are few data on SDEC and the factors associated with successful ambulatory care in frail older people. We therefore undertook a prospective observational study to determine i) the clinical characteristics and frailty burden of a cohort in an SDEC designed around the needs of older patients and ii) the factors associated with hospital admission within 30-days after initial assessment. Methods. The study setting was the multidisciplinary Abingdon Emergency Medical Unit (EMU) located in a community hospital and led by a senior interface physician (geriatrician or general practitioner). Consecutive patients from August-December 2015 were assessed using a structured paper proforma including cognitive/delirium screen, comorbidities, functional, social, and nutritional status. Physiologic parameters were recorded. Illness severity was quantified using the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS>1). Factors associated with hospitalization within 30-days were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Results. Among 533 patients (median (IQR) age=81 (68-87), 315 (59%) female), 453 (86%) were living at home but 283 (54%) required some form of care and 299 (56%) had Barthel85 years." Severe illness was present in 148 (28%) with broadly similar rates across age groups. Overall, 210 (39%) patients had a hospital admission within 30-days with higher rates in older patients: 96 (87%) of 85 years (p<0.0001). Factors independently associated with hospital admission were severe illness (SIRS/point, OR=1.46,95% CI=1.15-1.87, p=0.002) and markers of frailty: delirium (OR=11.28,3.07-41.44,p<0.0001), increased care needs (OR=3.08,1.55-6.12,p=0.001), transport requirement (OR=1.92,1.13-3.27), and poor nutrition (OR=1.13-3.79,p=0.02). Conclusions. Even in an SDEC with a multidisciplinary approach, rates of hospital admission in those with severe illness and frailty were high. Further studies are required to understand the key components of hospital bed-based care that need to be replicated by models delivering acute frailty care closer to home, and the feasibility, cost-effectiveness and patient/carer acceptability of such models

Sepsis recognition tools in acute ambulatory care::associations with process of care and clinical outcomes in a service evaluation of an Emergency Multidisciplinary Unit in Oxfordshire

To assess the performance of currently available sepsis recognition tools in patients referred to a community-based acute ambulatory care unit.Service evaluation of consecutive patients over a 4-month period.Community-based acute ambulatory care unit.Observations, blood results and outcome data were analysed from patients with a suspected infection. Clinical features at first assessment were used to populate sepsis recognition tools including: systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria. Scores were assessed against the clinical need for escalated care (use of intravenous antibiotics, fluids, ongoing ambulatory care or hospital treatment) and poor clinical outcome (all-cause mortality and readmission at 30 days after index assessment).Of 533 patients (median age 81 years), 316 had suspected infection with 120 patients requiring care escalated beyond simple community care. SIRS had the highest positive predictive value (50.9%, 95% CI 41.6% to 60.3%) and negative predictive value (68.9%, 95% CI 62.6% to 75.3%) for the need for escalated care. Both NEWS and SIRS were better at predicting the need for escalated care than qSOFA and NICE criteria in patients with suspected infection (all P<0.001). While new-onset confusion predicted the need for escalated care for infection in patients ≥85 years old (n=114), 23.7% of patients ≥85 years had new-onset confusion without evidence for infection.Acute ambulatory care clinicians should use caution in applying the new NICE endorsed criteria for determining the need for intravenous therapy and hospital-based location of care. NICE criteria have poorer performance when compared against NEWS and SIRS and new-onset confusion was prevalent in patients aged ≥85 years without infection

CORONA (COre ultRasOund of covid in iNtensive care & Acute medicine) Study : national service evaluation of lung and heart ultrasound in intensive care patients with suspected or proven COVID-19

Background Combined Lung Ultrasound (LUS) and Focused UltraSound for Intensive Care heart (FUSIC Heart - formerly Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography, FICE) can aid diagnosis, risk stratification and management in COVID-19. However, data on its application and results are limited to small studies in varying countries and hospitals. This United Kingdom (UK) national service evaluation study assessed how combined LUS and FUSIC Heart were used in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Method Twelve trusts across the UK registered for this prospective study. LUS and FUSIC Heart data were obtained, using a standardised data set including scoring of abnormalities, between 1st February 2020 to 30th July 2020. The scans were performed by intensivists with FUSIC Lung and Heart competency as a minimum standard. Data was anonymised locally prior to transfer to a central database. Results 372 studies were performed on 265 patients. There was a small but significant relationship between LUS score >8 and 30-day mortality (OR 1.8). Progression of score was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (OR 1.2). 30-day mortality was increased in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (49.4% vs 29.2%). Severity of LUS score correlated with RV dysfunction (p < 0.05). Change in management occurred in 65% of patients following a combined scan. Conclusions In COVID-19 patients, there is an association between lung ultrasound score severity, RV dysfunction and mortality identifiable by combined LUS and FUSIC Heart. The use of 12-point LUS scanning resulted in similar risk score to 6-point imaging in the majority of cases. Our findings suggest that serial combined LUS and FUSIC Heart on COVID-19 ICU patients may aid in clinical decision making and prognostication

Azithromycin versus standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool

Producing Cochrane systematic reviews—a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement

Background: Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes. Methods: To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents. Results: Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews

Brief pain re-assessment provided more accurate prognosis than baseline information for low-back or shoulder pain

Background Research investigating prognosis in musculoskeletal pain conditions has only been moderately successful in predicting which patients are unlikely to recover. Clinical decision making could potentially be improved by combining information taken at baseline and re-consultation. Methods Data from four prospective clinical cohorts of adults presenting to UK and Dutch primary care with low-back or shoulder pain was analysed, assessing long-term disability at 6 or 12 months and including baseline and 4–6 week assessments of pain. Baseline versus short-term assessments of pain, and previously validated multivariable prediction models versus repeat assessment, were compared to assess predictive performance of long-term disability outcome. A hypothetical clinical scenario was explored which made efficient use of both baseline and repeated assessment to identify patients likely to have a poor prognosis and decide on further treatment. Results Short-term repeat assessment of pain was better than short-term change or baseline score at predicting long-term disability improvement across all cohorts. Short-term repeat assessment of pain was only slightly more predictive of long-term recovery (c-statistics 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.83 and 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) than a multivariable baseline prognostic model in the two cohorts presenting such a model (c-statistics 0.71, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.76 and 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78). Combining optimal prediction at baseline using a multivariable prognostic model with short-term repeat assessment of pain in those with uncertain prognosis in a hypothetical clinical scenario resulted in reduction in the number of patients with an uncertain probability of recovery, thereby reducing the instances where patients may be inappropriately referred or reassured. Conclusions Incorporating short-term repeat assessment of pain into prognostic models could potentially optimise the clinical usefulness of prognostic information