Diagnostic value of a simplified Pfeiffer questionnaire for polypathological patients

Proyecto Profund.[ES]: Objetivos: Analizar la concordancia, sensibilidad, especificidad y valores predictivos positivo (VPP) y negativo (VPN) de cada pregunta del cuestionario de Pfeiffer (SPMSQ) con respecto al cuestionario completo en pacientes pluripatológicos (PPP). Métodos: Estudio transversal multicéntrico. El SPMSQ se consideró patológico si se registraban 3 o más errores. Para cada pregunta y combinaciones de 2 preguntas se calcularon la concordancia (índice kappa), sensibilidad, especificidad y valores predictivos con respecto al SPMSQ completo. Resultados: De los 1.632 pacientes pluripatológicos incluidos (edad media 77,9 ± 9,8 años, 53% varones), se realizó el SPMSQ a 1.434 (los restantes presentaban delirium) y resultó patológico en el 39%. Las preguntas «¿qué día es hoy?» y «reste de 3 en 3 desde 20» obtuvieron buena concordancia y VPN (85% y 89%, respectivamente); la combinación de ambas aumentó el VPN al 97%. La pregunta «¿cuándo nació?» alcanzó buena concordancia y el mayor VPP (93%). Conclusiones: La combinación de las preguntas «¿qué día es hoy?» y «reste de 3 en 3 desde 20» obtuvo un VPN elevado, y la relacionada con la fecha de nacimiento fue la que consiguió el mayor VPP.[EN] Objectives: To analyse the correlation, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values of each question on the Pfeiffer questionnaire (SPMSQ) compared with the full questionnaire for polypathological patients (PPPs). Methods: Multicentre cross-sectional study. An SPMSQ score is considered pathological if 3 or more errors are recorded. For each question and combination of 2 questions, we calculated the correlation (kappa index), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values compared with the full SPMSQ. Results: Of the 1632 PPPs included (mean age, 77.9 ± 9.8 years, 53% men), 1434 performed the SPMSQ (the remaining presented delirium); 39% of the PPPs were pathological. The question “What day is it today?” and the command “Count backwards by 3s from 20” obtained good correlation and NPV (85 and 89%, respectively); the combination of both increased the NPV to 97%. The question “When were you born?’ achieved good correlation and greater PPV (93%). Conclusions: The combination of the question “What day is it today?” and the command “Count backwards by 3s from 20” achieved a high NPV. The question related to the date of birth achieved the highest PPV

Prognostic stratification and healthcare approach in patients with multiple pathologies

[ES] Los pacientes pluripatológicos constituyen una población prevalente y homogénea, caracterizada por su complejidad clínica, vulnerabilidad, consumo de recursos y mortalidad que requiere una asistencia integral y coordinada. Establecer un pronóstico certero en esta población resulta de utilidad para la toma de decisiones clínicas por parte de los profesionales, la planificación de las preferencias de pacientes y familiares, y el diseño de estrategias en el ámbito de la gestión sanitaria. También es importante para la investigación clínica, al facilitar la posible incorporación de estos pacientes a ensayos clínicos y otros estudios de intervención. Los índices PROFUND y PROFUNCTION son 2 instrumentos pronósticos que predicen de manera fidedigna el riesgo de fallecer o de sufrir un deterioro funcional, respectivamente. Para el abordaje asistencial de los pacientes pluripatológicos se propugna la construcción y ejecución de un plan de acción personalizado, consensuado y adaptado a la realidad del paciente. Este tendrá en cuenta el pronóstico, la evidencia y viabilidad de las intervenciones, así como la sinergia de las metas y estrategias del equipo sanitario con los valores y las preferencias de las personas para conseguir un modelo de salud centrado en apoyar la capacidad de las mismas para gestionar sus enfermedades. En este plan los principales ámbitos de intervención son: la promoción y prevención de la salud, la activación y autogestión del paciente y el cuidador, la red de apoyo social, la optimización farmacoterapéutica, la rehabilitación y medidas de preservación funcional y cognitiva, y la planificación anticipada de decisiones.[EN] Polypathological patients constitute a prevalent, fairly homogeneous population, which is characterised by high clinical complexity, substantial vulnerability and significant resource consumption, in addition to high mortality and the need for comprehensive, coordinated care. It is particularly important to establish a reliable prognosis in these patients. It is also extremely useful for professionals involved in the decision-making process for patients and their families in vital planning and their preferences, for strategic health planning in management fields, and for clinical research, by facilitating their incorporation into clinical trials and other intervention studies. Two prognostic instruments stand out in terms of suitability for polypathological patients: PROFUND and PROFUNCTION. The former faithfully stratifies the risk of dying at 12 months and four years and the latter, the risk of suffering a significant functional deterioration at 12 months. In terms of the healthcare approach in patients with multiple pathologies, creating and executing a consensual, personalised action plan that is adapted to the patient's reality is encouraged. The plan will consider the prognosis, and the evidence and viability of interventions; its ultimate aim will be to ensure the synergy and alignment of the health team's goals and strategies with peoples’ values and preferences, in order to achieve a more proactive health model focused on supporting patients in their ability to manage their illnesses. In the personalised action plan, the main areas of intervention are: health promotion and prevention; patient and caregiver activation and self-management; activation of a social support network and social support; optimisation of pharmacotherapy; rehabilitation, functional and cognitive preservation measures; and anticipated decision planning

Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks

Elderly people are more severely affected by COVID-19. Nevertheless scarce information about specific prognostic scores for this population is available. The main objective was to compare the accuracy of recently developed COVID-19 prognostic scores to that of CURB-65, Charlson and PROFUND indices in a cohort of 272 elderly patients from four nursing homes, affected by COVID-19. Accuracy was measured by calibration (calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshov (H-L) test), and discriminative power (area under the receiver operation curve (AUC-ROC). Negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) were also obtained. Overall mortality rate was 22.4 %. Only ACP and Shi et al. out of 10 specific COVID-19 indices could be assessed. All indices but CURB-65 showed a good calibration by H-L test, whilst PROFUND, ACP and CURB-65 showed best results in calibration curves. Only CURB-65 (AUC-ROC = 0.81 [0.75–0.87])) and PROFUND (AUC-ROC = 0.67 [0.6–0.75])) showed good discrimination power. The highest NPV was obtained by CURB-65 (95 % [90–98%]), PROFUND (93 % [77–98%]), and their combination (100 % [82–100%]); whereas CURB-65 (74 % [51–88%]), and its combination with PROFUND (80 % [50–94%]) showed highest PPV. PROFUND and CURB-65 indices showed the highest accuracy in predicting death-risk of elderly patients affected by COVID-19, whereas Charlson and recent developed COVID-19 specific tools lacked it, or were not available to assess. A comprehensive clinical stratification on two-level basis (basal death risk due to chronic conditions by PROFUND index, plus current death risk due to COVID-19 by CURB-65), could be an appropriate approach

Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks.

Elderly people are more severely affected by COVID-19. Nevertheless scarce information about specific prognostic scores for this population is available. The main objective was to compare the accuracy of recently developed COVID-19 prognostic scores to that of CURB-65, Charlson and PROFUND indices in a cohort of 272 elderly patients from four nursing homes, affected by COVID-19. Accuracy was measured by calibration (calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshov (H-L) test), and discriminative power (area under the receiver operation curve (AUC-ROC). Negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) were also obtained. Overall mortality rate was 22.4 %. Only ACP and Shi et al. out of 10 specific COVID-19 indices could be assessed. All indices but CURB-65 showed a good calibration by H-L test, whilst PROFUND, ACP and CURB-65 showed best results in calibration curves. Only CURB-65 (AUC-ROC = 0.81 [0.75-0.87])) and PROFUND (AUC-ROC = 0.67 [0.6-0.75])) showed good discrimination power. The highest NPV was obtained by CURB-65 (95 % [90-98%]), PROFUND (93 % [77-98%]), and their combination (100 % [82-100%]); whereas CURB-65 (74 % [51-88%]), and its combination with PROFUND (80 % [50-94%]) showed highest PPV. PROFUND and CURB-65 indices showed the highest accuracy in predicting death-risk of elderly patients affected by COVID-19, whereas Charlson and recent developed COVID-19 specific tools lacked it, or were not available to assess. A comprehensive clinical stratification on two-level basis (basal death risk due to chronic conditions by PROFUND index, plus current death risk due to COVID-19 by CURB-65), could be an appropriate approach

Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks

Elderly people are more severely affected by COVID-19. Nevertheless scarce information about specific prognostic scores for this population is available. The main objective was to compare the accuracy of recently developed COVID-19 prognostic scores to that of CURB-65, Charlson and PROFUND indices in a cohort of 272 elderly patients from four nursing homes, affected by COVID-19. Accuracy was measured by calibration (calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshov (H-L) test), and discriminative power (area under the receiver operation curve (AUC-ROC). Negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) were also obtained. Overall mortality rate was 22.4 %. Only ACP and Shi et al. out of 10 specific COVID-19 indices could be assessed. All indices but CURB-65 showed a good calibration by H-L test, whilst PROFUND, ACP and CURB-65 showed best results in calibration curves. Only CURB-65 (AUC-ROC = 0.81 [0.75–0.87])) and PROFUND (AUC-ROC = 0.67 [0.6–0.75])) showed good discrimination power. The highest NPV was obtained by CURB-65 (95 % [90–98%]), PROFUND (93 % [77–98%]), and their combination (100 % [82–100%]); whereas CURB-65 (74 % [51–88%]), and its combination with PROFUND (80 % [50–94%]) showed highest PPV. PROFUND and CURB-65 indices showed the highest accuracy in predicting death-risk of elderly patients affected by COVID-19, whereas Charlson and recent developed COVID-19 specific tools lacked it, or were not available to assess. A comprehensive clinical stratification on two-level basis (basal death risk due to chronic conditions by PROFUND index, plus current death risk due to COVID-19 by CURB-65), could be an appropriate approach

Effectiveness of a On-site Medicalization Program for Nursing Homes With COVID-19 Outbreaks.

Nursing homes are highly vulnerable to the occurrence of COVID-19 outbreaks, which result in high lethality rates. Most of them are not prepared to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. A coordinated on-site medicalization program (MP) in response to a sizeable COVID-19 outbreak in 4 nursing homes was organized, with the objectives of improving survival, offering humanistic palliative care to residents in their natural environment, and reducing hospital referrals. Ten key processes and interventions were established (provision of informatics infrastructure, medical equipment, and human resources, universal testing, separation of "clean" and "contaminated" areas, epidemiological surveys, and unified protocols stratifying for active or palliative care approach, among others). Main outcomes were a composite endpoint of survival or optimal palliative care (SOPC), survival, and referral to hospital. Two hundred and seventy-two of 457 (59.5%) residents and 85 of 320 (26.5%) staff members were affected. The SOPC, survival, and referrals to hospital occurred in 77%, 72.5%, and 29% of patients diagnosed before the start of MP, with respect to 97%, 83.7%, and 17% of those diagnosed during the program, respectively. The SOPC was independently associated to MP (OR = 15 [3-81]); and survival in patients stratified to active approach, to the use of any antiviral treatment (OR = 28 [5-160]). All outbreaks were controlled in 39 [37-42] days. A coordinated on-site MP of nursing homes with COVID-19 outbreaks achieved a higher SOPC rate, and a reduction in referrals to hospital, thus ensuring rigorous but also humanistic and gentle care to residents