The Baby Boom and later life: is critical care fit for the future?

Populations around the world are ageing while in many developed countries the proportion of elderly patients admitted to critical care is rising. It is clear that age alone should not be used as a reason for refusing intensive care admission. Critical care in this patient group is challenging in many ways: with advancing age, several physiological changes occur which all lead to a subsequent reduction of physical performance and compensatory capacity, in many cases additionally aggravated by chronic illness. Subsequently, these age-dependent changes (with or without chronic illness) increase the risk for death, treatment costs and a prolonged length of intensive care and hospital stay. This review explores the potential of using co-morbidity and frailty to predict outcome and to help to make better decisions about critical care admission in the elderly. The authors explore the challenges of using different frailty assessment tools and offer a model for holistic approach to answer these questions

Can vital signs recorded in patients' homes aid decision making in emergency care? A Scoping Review

Aim: Use of tele-health programs and wearable sensors that allow patients to monitor their own vital signs have been expanded in response to COVID-19. We aimed to explore the utility of patient-held data during presentation as medical emergencies. Methods: We undertook a systematic scoping review of two groups of studies: studies using non-invasive vital sign monitoring in patients with chronic diseases aimed at preventing unscheduled reviews in primary care, hospitalization or emergency department visits and studies using vital sign measurements from wearable sensors for decision making by clinicians on presentation of these patients as emergencies. Only studies that described a comparator or control group were included. Studies limited to inpatient use of devices were excluded. Results: The initial search resulted in 896 references for screening, nine more studies were identified through searches of references. 26 studies fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria and were further analyzed. The majority of studies were from telehealth programs of patients with congestive heart failure or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. There was limited evidence that patient held data is currently used to risk-stratify the admission or discharge process for medical emergencies. Studies that showed impact on mortality or hospital admission rates measured vital signs at least daily. We identified no interventional study using commercially available sensors in watches or smart phones. Conclusions: Further research is needed to determine utility of patient held monitoring devices to guide management of acute medical emergencies at the patients’ home, on presentation to hospital and after discharge back to the community

The use of different sepsis risk stratification tools on the wards and in emergency departments uncovers different mortality risks: results of the three Welsh national multicenter point-prevalence studies

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, Red Flag Sepsis, and National Institute of Clinical Excellence sepsis risk stratification tools in the identification of patients at greatest risk of mortality from sepsis in nonintensive care environments. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of three annual 24-hour point-prevalence study periods. SETTING: The general wards and emergency departments of 14 acute hospitals across Wales. Studies were conducted on the third Wednesday of October in 2017, 2018, and 2019. PATIENTS: We screened all patients presenting to the emergency department and on the general wards. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recruited 1,271 patients, of which 724 (56.9%) had systemic inflammatory response syndrome greater than or equal to 2, 679 (53.4%) had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and 977 (76.9%) had Red Flag Sepsis. When stratified according to National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines, 450 patients (35.4%) were in the “High risk” category in comparison with 665 (52.3%) in “Moderate to High risk” and 156 (12.3%) in “Low risk” category. In a planned sensitivity analysis, we found that none of the tools accurately predicted mortality at 90 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and National Institute of Clinical Excellence tools showed only moderate discriminatory power for mortality at 7 and 14 days. Furthermore, we could not find any significant correlation with any of the tools at any of the mortality time points. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the sepsis risk stratification tools currently utilized in emergency departments and on the general wards do not predict mortality adequately. This is illustrated by the disparity in mortality risk of the populations captured by each instrument, as well as the weak concordance between them. We propose that future studies on the development of sepsis identification tools should focus on identifying predicator values of both the short- and long-term outcomes of sepsis

Quality metrics for the evaluation of Rapid Response Systems: Proceedings from the third international consensus conference on Rapid Response Systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant deterioration of patients admitted to general wards is a recognized complication of hospital care. Rapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to reduce the number of avoidable adverse events. The authors aimed to develop a core quality metric for the evaluation of RRS. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus process. Participants included patients, carers, clinicians, research scientists, and members of the International Society for Rapid Response Systems with representatives from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia and the US. Scoping reviews of the literature identified potential metrics. We used a modified Delphi methodology to arrive at a list of candidate indicators that were reviewed for feasibility and applicability across a broad range of healthcare systems including low and middle-income countries. The writing group refined recommendations and further characterized measurement tools. RESULTS: Consensus emerged that core outcomes for reporting for quality improvement should include ten metrics related to structure, process and outcome for RRS with outcomes following the domains of the quadruple aim. The conference recommended that hospitals should collect data on cardiac arrests and their potential predictability, timeliness of escalation, critical care interventions and presence of written treatment goals for patients remaining on general wards. Unit level reporting should include the presence of patient activated rapid response and metrics of organizational culture. We suggest two exploratory cost metrics to underpin urgently needed research in this area. CONCLUSION: A consensus process was used to develop ten metrics for better understanding the course and care of deteriorating ward patients. Others are proposed for further development

Digital Remote Monitoring Using an mHealth Solution for Survivors of Cancer: Protocol for a Pilot Observational Study

Background: Healthy lifestyle interventions have a positive impact on multiple disease trajectories, including cancer-related outcomes. Specifically, appropriate habitual physical activity, adequate sleep, and a regular wholesome diet are of paramount importance for the wellness and supportive care of survivors of cancer. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have the potential to support novel tailored lifestyle interventions. Objective: This observational pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of mHealth multidimensional longitudinal monitoring in survivors of cancer. The primary objective is to test the compliance (user engagement) with the monitoring solution. Secondary objectives include recording clinically relevant subjective and objective measures collected through the digital solution. Methods: This is a monocentric pilot study taking place in Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom. We plan to enroll up to 100 adult survivors of cancer not receiving toxic anticancer treatment, who will provide self-reported behavioral data recorded via a dedicated app and validated questionnaires and objective data automatically collected by a paired smartwatch over 16 weeks. The participants will continue with their normal routine surveillance care for their cancer. The primary end point is feasibility (eg, mHealth monitoring acceptability). Composite secondary end points include clinically relevant patient-reported outcome measures (eg, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System score) and objective physiological measures (eg, step counts). This trial received a favorable ethical review in May 2023 (Integrated Research Application System 301068). Results: This study is part of an array of pilots within a European Union funded project, entitled “GATEKEEPER,” conducted at different sites across Europe and covering various chronic diseases. Study accrual is anticipated to commence in January 2024 and continue until June 2024. It is hypothesized that mHealth monitoring will be feasible in survivors of cancer; specifically, at least 50% (50/100) of the participants will engage with the app at least once a week in 8 of the 16 study weeks. Conclusions: In a population with potentially complex clinical needs, this pilot study will test the feasibility of multidimensional remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes and physiological parameters. Satisfactory compliance with the use of the app and smartwatch, whether confirmed or infirmed through this study, will be propaedeutic to the development of innovative mHealth interventions in survivors of cancer