Search

Older adults undergoing emergency abdominal surgery have significantly poorer outcomes than younger adults. For those who survive, the level of care required on discharge from hospital is unknown and such information could guide decision-making. The ELF (Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty) study aimed to determine whether preoperative frailty in older adults was associated with increased dependence at the time of discharge.The ELF study was a UK-wide multicentre prospective cohort study of older patients (65 years or more) undergoing emergency laparotomy during March and June 2017. The objective was to establish whether preoperative frailty was associated with increased care level at discharge compared with preoperative care level. The analysis used a multilevel logistic regression adjusted for preadmission frailty, patient age, sex and care level.A total of 934 patients were included from 49 hospitals. Mean(s.d.) age was 76·2(6·8) years, with 57·6 per cent women; 20·2 per cent were frail. Some 37·4 per cent of older adults had an increased care level at discharge. Increasing frailty was associated with increased discharge care level, with greater predictive power than age. The adjusted odds ratio for an increase in care level was 4·48 (95 per cent c.i. 2·03 to 9·91) for apparently vulnerable patients (Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) 4), 5·94 (2·54 to 13·90) for those mildly frail (CFS 5) and 7·88 (2·97 to 20·79) for those moderately or severely frail (CFS 6 or 7), compared with patients who were fit.Over 37 per cent of older adults undergoing emergency laparotomy required increased care at discharge. Frailty scoring was a significant predictor, and should be integrated into all acute surgical units to aid shared decision-making and discharge planning.Los adultos mayores sometidos a cirugía abdominal de urgencia tienen resultados significativamente peores que los adultos jóvenes. Para aquellos pacientes que sobreviven, el nivel de atención que requieren tras el alta hospitalaria se desconoce y esta información podría servir de guía en la toma de decisiones. El estudio ELF (Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty) tenía como objetivo determinar si la fragilidad preoperatoria en adultos mayores se asociaba con un aumento de la dependencia en el momento del alta. MÉTODOS: El estudio ELF era un estudio multicéntrico extenso efectuado en el Reino Unido (n = 49) que incluyó una cohorte prospectiva de 934 pacientes mayores ( 65 años) sometidos a laparotomía de urgencia durante marzo-junio de 2017. El objetivo fue establecer si la fragilidad preoperatoria aumentaba el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta en comparación con el nivel de asistencia preoperatorio. Para el análisis se utilizó una regresión logística multinivel ajustada a características previas al ingreso: fragilidad, edad del paciente, género, y nivel de asistencia.La edad media de los pacientes fue 76,2 años (DE = 6,83), con un 57% de mujeres, un 20,2% de pacientes frágiles y un 37,4% de adultos mayores que presentaron un aumento en el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta. Un aumento de la fragilidad se asoció con un incremento en el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta (y mayor poder predictivo que la edad). La razón de oportunidades (odds ratio, OR) ajustada por el aumento del nivel de asistencia fue 4,48 (i.c. del 95% 2,03-9,91) para pacientes aparentemente vulnerables (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS 4); 5,94 (i.c. del 95% 2,54-13,90) para aquellos ligeramente frágiles (CFS 5); y 7,88 (i.c. del 95% 2,97-20,79) para aquellos con fragilidad moderada o grave (CFS 6 and 7) en comparación con pacientes en buenas condiciones. CONCLUSIÓN: Este es el primer estudio que documenta que más del 37% de adultos mayores sometidos a laparotomía de urgencia precisaron un aumento en el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta. La evaluación de la fragilidad debería integrarse en todas las unidades quirúrgicas de agudos para ayudar a compartir la toma de decisiones y los planes de tratamiento.

IntroductionHealth administration is complex and serves many masters. Value, quality, infrastructure and reimbursement are just a sample of the competing interests influencing executive decision-making. This creates a need for decision processes that are rational and holistic.MethodsWe created a multicriteria decision analysis tool to evaluate six fields of healthcare provision: return on investment, capacity, outcomes, safety, training and risk. The tool was designed for prospective use, at the beginning of each funding round for competing projects. Administrators were asked to rank their criteria in order of preference. Each field was assigned a representative weight determined from the rankings. Project data were then entered into the tool for each of the six fields. The score for each field was scaled as a proportion of the highest scoring project, then weighted by preference. We then plotted findings on a cost-effectiveness plane. The project was piloted and developed over successive uses by the hospital’s executive board.ResultsTwelve projects competing for funding at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital were scored by the tool. It created a priority ranking for each initiative based on the weights assigned to each field by the executive board. Projects were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane with score as the x-axis and cost of implementation as the y-axis. Projects to the bottom right were considered dominant over projects above and to the left, indicating that they provided greater benefit at a lower cost. Projects below the x-axis were cost-saving and recommended provided they did not harm patients. All remaining projects above the x-axis were then recommended in order of lowest to highest cost-per-point scored.ConclusionThis tool provides a transparent, objective method of decision analysis using accessible software. It would serve health services delivery organisations that seek to achieve value in healthcare.