Search

Background If survival could be reliably predicted many patients could be safely managed outside of hospital in an ambulatory care setting. Aim Comparison of common laboratory findings, co-morbidities, mobility and vital signs as predictors of mortality of acutely ill emergency department (ED) attendees. Design Prospective observational study. Methods Secondary analysis of 1334 consenting acutely ill patients attending a Danish ED. Results 67 (5%) out of 1334 patients died within 100 days. After logistic regression seven predictors of 100 days mortality remained significant: an albumin level ≤34 gm/l, D-dimer level >0.51 mg/l, an Asadollahi score (based on admission laboratory data and age) ≥12, a platelet count <159 X 1000/ml, impaired mobility on presentation, a respiratory rate ≥30 bpm and a Charlson co-morbidity index ≥3. Only 5 of the 442 without any of these variables died within 365 days. Only one of the 517 patients with a stable independent gait and normal d-dimer and albumin levels died within 100 days, none died within 30 days of assessment and 12 died within 365 days. Of the remaining 817 patients 66 (8%) died within 100 days. Conclusion These findings suggest that normal gait, albumin and d-dimer levels are the most parsimonious way of identifying low risk ED patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a response to a previous paper that discussed the intensive care requirements of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The authors of this response emphasize the importance of detailing the diverse reasons for ICU admission in ICI-treated patients and argue that ICU admission can be beneficial regardless of whether patients present with ICI-related adverse events. They also acknowledge the challenges faced by emergency care systems, such as shortage of ICU beds and the heterogeneity of emergency cancer services. The authors conclude that early recognition and aggressive treatment of high-risk immune-related adverse events are crucial for good outcomes, while also recognizing the need to identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from intensive care interventions. [Extracted from the article]

Background Timely and consistent recognition of a 'clinical crisis', a life threatening condition that demands immediate intervention, is essential to reduce 'failure to rescue' rates in general wards. Aim To determine how different clinical caregivers define a 'clinical crisis' and how they respond to it. Design An international survey. Methods Clinicians working on general wards, intensive care units or emergency departments in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark were asked to review ten scenarios based on common real-life cases. Then they were asked to grade the urgency and severity of the scenario, their degree of concern, their estimate for the risk for death and indicate their preferred action for escalation. The primary outcome was the scenarios with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≥7 considered to be a 'clinical crisis'. Secondary outcomes included how often a rapid response system (RRS) was activated, and if this was influenced by the participant's professional role or experience. The data from all participants in all three countries was pooled for analysis. Results A total of 150 clinicians participated in the survey. The highest percentage of clinicians that considered one of the three scenarios with a NEWS ≥7 as a 'clinical crisis' was 52%, while a RRS was activated by <50% of participants. Professional roles and job experience only had a minor influence on the recognition of a 'clinical crisis' and how it should be responded to. Conclusion This international survey indicates that clinicians differ on what they consider to be a 'clinical crisis' and on how it should be managed. Even in cases with a markedly abnormal physiology (i.e. NEWS ≥7) many clinicians do not consider immediate activation of a RRS is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundAdvances in cancer management have been associated with an increased incidence of emergency presentations with disease- or treatment-related complications. ObjectiveThis study aimed to measure the ability of patients and members of their social network to complete checklists for complications of systemic treatment for cancer and examine the impact on patient-centered and health-economic outcomes. MethodsA prospective interventional cohort study was performed to assess the impact of a smartphone app used by patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy and members of their network to monitor for common complications. The app was used by patients, a nominated “safety buddy,” and acute oncology services. The control group was made up of patients from the same institution. Measures were based on process (completion of checklists over 60 days), patient experience outcomes (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the General version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months) and health-economic outcomes (usage of appointments in primary care and elective and unscheduled hospital admissions). ResultsAt the conclusion of the study, 50 patients had completed 2882 checklists, and their 50 “safety buddies” had completed 318 checklists. Near daily usage was maintained over the 60-day study period. When compared to a cohort of 50 patients with matching disease profiles from the same institution, patients in the intervention group had comparable changes in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and General version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy. Patients in the Intervention Group required a third (32 vs 97 nights) of the hospital days with overnight stay compared to patients in the Control Group, though the difference was not significant. The question, “I feel safer with the checklist,” received a mean score of 4.27 (SD 0.87) on a Likert scale (1-5) for patients and 4.55 (SD 0.65) for family and friends. ConclusionsPatients undergoing treatment for cancer and their close contacts can complete checklists for common complications of systemic treatments and take an active role in systems supporting their own safety. A larger sample size will be needed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes and health economics.

Background: Supportive care to ensure optimal quality of life is an essential component of cancer care and symptom control across the lifespan. Ongoing advances in cancer treatment, increasing toxicity from many novel treatment regimes, and variations in access to care and cancer outcomes across the globe and resource settings present significant challenges for supportive care delivery. To date, no overarching framework has been developed to guide supportive care development worldwide. As an initial step of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Supportive Care 2030 Movement, we developed a targeted, unifying set of ambition statements to envision the future of supportive cancer care., Methods: From September 2022 until June 2023, we used a modified Delphi methodology to develop and attain consensus about ambition statements related to supportive cancer care. Leaders of MASCC Study Groups were invited to participate in an Expert Panel for the first two Delphi rounds (and a preliminary round to suggest potential ambition statements). Patient Advocates then examined and provided input regarding the ambition statements., Findings: Twenty-seven Expert Panelists and 11 Patient Advocates participated. Consensus was attained on 13 ambition statements, with two sub-statements. The ambition statements addressed global standards for guideline development and implementation, coordinated and individualized care, dedicated supportive oncology services, self-management, needs for screening and actions, patient education, behavioral support, financial impact minimization, comprehensive survivorship care, and timely palliative care, reflecting collaboration, coordination and team-based approach across all levels., Interpretation: This study is the first to develop shared ambitions for the future of supportive cancer care on a global level. These ambition statements can facilitate a coordinated, resource-stratified, and person-centered approach and inform research, education, clinical services, and policy efforts., Funding: This project received funding support from Prof Raymond Chan's NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1194051)., Competing Interests: All authors declare their leadership roles within the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer. The individual authors also reported their respective conflicts of interest, however are not judged to be directly relevant to the conduct of this study. FA reported reimbursement from VieCure for travel-related expenses to attend ASCO 2024 and MASCC 2024; US Patent No. 11, 798,689 B2: AI decision-support platform to generate patient-specific health plans based on unique patient circumstances; Clinical Advisory Committee Chair—VieCure; Stock—VieCure Oncology Decision Support Platform. IO reported receiving reimbursement from MASCC to travel to 2022 and 2023 MASCC Annual Scientific Meetings; and Chair of SAX Institute Board. CT reported Leadership or fiduciary roles: Executive Director, Global Focus on Cancer; Advisory Board, Asia Pacific Oncology Alliance; Steering Committee, WHO Symposium on Meaningful Engagement; Editorial Board, Cancer Survivorship Research & Care Journal. PB reported receiving consulting fees from Angelini, Nestle, Nutricia and Molteni; and participation on Angelini Advisory Board/Data Safety Monitoring Board. TN reported receiving research funding from Otsuka Pharmaceutical CO, Ltd, and Kracie Ltd; and lecture fee for ONO Pharmaceutical CO Ltd. ADO reported Pfizer stock ownership. HW reported she is the recipient of a Hospital Research Foundation Research Fellowship. FS reported payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, Sanofi, Roche, MSD, Prostrakan, Leo pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre Oncologie, Pharmanovia, Vifor Pharma, GSK, Viatris, Helsinn, Gilead, and Daichy Sankyo. PA reported receiving grant (250.000 euros) from Cariplo Foundation; consulting fees from GHD Healthcare, Oncosultions, LLC, and Techspert. IO LTD., (Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Older people living with frailty are at high risk of emergency hospital admission and often have complex care needs which may not be adequately met by conventional models of acute care. This has driven the introduction of adaptations to acute care pathways designed to improve outcomes in this patient group. The identification of differences in the organisational approach to frailty may highlight opportunities for quality improvement., Methods: The Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking audit is a national service evaluation which uses a single day-of-care methodology to record patient and organisational level data. All acute hospitals in the United Kingdom are eligible to participate. Emergency admissions referred to acute medical services between 00:00 and 23:59 on Thursday 23rd June 2022 were recorded. Information on the structure and operational design of acute frailty services was collected. The use of a validated frailty assessment tool, clinical frailty scale within the first 24 h of admission, assessment by an acute frailty service and clinical outcomes were reported in patients aged 70 year and above. A mixed effect generalised linear model was used to determine factors associated same-day discharge without overnight stay in patients with frailty., Results: A total of 152 hospitals participated. There was significant heterogeneity in the operational design and staffing model of acute frailty services. The presence of an acute frailty unit was reported in 57 (42.2%) hospitals. The use of validated frailty assessment tools was reported in 117 (90.0%) hospitals, of which 107 (91.5%) used the clinical frailty scale. Patient-level data were recorded for 3604 patients aged 70 years and above. At the patient level, 1626 (45.1%) were assessed using a validated tool during the admission process. Assessment by acute frailty services was associated with an increased likelihood of same-day discharge (adjusted OR 1.55, 95%CI 1.03- 2.39)., Conclusion: There is significant variation in the provision of acute frailty services. Frailty-related policies and services are common at the organisational level but implemented inconsistently at the patient level. Older people with frailty or geriatric syndromes assessed by acute frailty services were more likely to be discharged without the need for overnight bed-based admission., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: This study investigated thyroid dysfunction with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in terms of proportions affected, risk factors, thyroid sequelae, and overall survival (OS)., Methods: Among patients with normal baseline free T4 (fT4) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) receiving ICIs at a large cancer centre, proportions of hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism were determined (any, subclinical [normal fT4, abnormal TSH], overt [abnormal fT4, abnormal TSH], isolated hyperthyroxinaemia/hypothyroxinaemia and secondary) with onset times and subsequent thyroid statuses. Associations of overt dysfunction with OS were estimated using Cox regression and methods robust to immortal time bias (time-dependent Cox regression and 3- and 6-month landmark analyses). Associations of baseline variables with overt hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism were estimated using Fine and Gray regression., Results: Of 1349 patients, 34.2% developed hyperthyroidism (10.3% overt), including 54.9% receiving combination ICIs, while 28.2% developed hypothyroidism (overt 9.3%, secondary 0.5%). A third of overt hypothyroidism cases occurred without preceding hyperthyroidism. Subclinical thyroid dysfunction returned directly to normal in up to half. Overt hyperthyroidism progressed to overt hypothyroidism in 55.4% (median 1.6 months). Melanoma treatment in the adjuvant vs. advanced setting caused more overt hyperthyroidism (12.1% vs. 7.5%) and overt hypothyroidism (14.5% vs. 9.7%). Baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (HR=1.68, 1.07-2.63) was associated with overt hyperthyroidism and sex (HR=0.60, 0.42-0.87) and TSH (4th vs. 1st quartile HR=1.87, 1.10-3.19) with overt hypothyroidism. Overt dysfunction was associated with OS in the Cox analysis (HR=0.65, 0.50-0.85, median follow-up 22.2 months) but not in the time-dependent Cox (HR=0.79, 0.60-1.03) or landmark analyses (3-month HR=0.74, 0.51-1.07; 6-month HR=0.91, 0.66-1.24)., Conclusion: Thyroid dysfunction affects up to half of patients receiving ICIs. The association with OS is unclear after considering immortal time bias. The clinical courses include recovery, thyrotoxicosis and de novo overt hypothyroidism. Adjuvant treatment for melanoma, where longer-term harms are of concern, causes more frequent/aggressive dysfunction., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To investigate the predictive value of both mental status, assessed with the AVPUC (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive, and new Confusion) scale, and mobility assessments, and their interrater reliability (IRR) between triage clinicians and a research team., Method: Prospective study of consecutive patients who presented to an ED. Mental status and mobility were assessed by triage clinicians and by a dedicated research team., Results: 4,191 patients were included. After adjustment for age and sex, patients with altered mental status have an odds ratio of 6.55 [4.09-10.24] to be admitted in the ICU and an odds ratio of 21.16 [12.06-37.01] to die within 30 days; patients with impaired mobility have an odds ratio of 7.08 [4.60-11.12] to be admitted in the ICU and an odds ratio of 12.87 [5.93-32.30] to die within 30 days. The kappa coefficient between triage clinicians and the research team for mental status assessment was 0.75, and 0.80 for mobility., Conclusion: Assessment of mental status by the AVPUC scale, and mobility by a simple dichotomous scale are suitable for ED triage. Both altered mental status and impaired mobility are associated with adverse outcomes. Mental status and mobility assessment have good interrater reliability., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest John Kellett is founder and major shareholder of Tapa Healthcare DAC, a start-up medical software company. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to be declared., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Performance within acute medicine services is impacted by ongoing pressures on acute care services. Data from the Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit 2023 (SAMBA23), was used to assess performance of acute medicine services compared to key clinical quality indicators, comparing performance by initial assessment location. Data was analysed for 8213 unplanned attendances across 161 hospitals. Comparing by initial assessment location, performance against the clinical quality indicators was unchanged from 2022. Only 29% of daytime arrivals assessed within the Emergency Department received consultant review within target times. Delays were seen in transfer between acute care locations. 29% of patients requiring admission were not admitted to the AMU. There is ongoing variation in acute medical service performance nationally, with significant delays in patient access to appropriate assessment locations.

Urgent and emergency care services face increasing pressure, impacting patient care. We evaluated the performance of acute medicine services, assessing clinical quality indicators for unplanned medical admissions to acute hospital services. 152 acute UK hospital services accepting unplanned admissions to acute and general internal medicine completed a day-of-care survey incorporating organisational structure questionnaire and patient-level data over a pre-defined 24-hour period in June 2022. Clinical quality indicators were: Early Warning Score (EWS) measurement within 30 min of hospital arrival; clinician assessment within 4 h; assessment by consultant physician within 6 h (daytime) or 14 h (night-time). Results were compared with 2019, 2020, 2021. 7293 sequential patients were included (and compared with 19,817 patients across 2019-2021). In 2022, 69% of patients (95%CI 67.7-69.9%) had an EWS documented within 30 min. 79% of patients (95%CI 77.8-79.7%) were reviewed by a clinical decision maker within 4 h of hospital arrival. Patients assessed in Same Day Emergency Care services were more likely to meet this target than those assessed in Acute Medical Units or Emergency Departments (OR 2.4, 95%CI 2.02-2.87, p<0.001). Overall, 50% of patients received consultant physician review within the target time (3065/6161, 95%CI 48.5-51.0%); performance varied with time of arrival and location of initial assessment. Performance against all three clinical quality indicators was lower than 2019, 2020 and 2021 (p<0.001 for all). Performance against all quality indicators within acute medicine services is deteriorating. However, performance in Same Day Emergency Care Units is greater than in Acute Medical Units or Emergency Departments., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; CA is funded by an NIHR clinical lectureship. DSL declares salary support from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Frailty is associated with a range of adverse clinical outcomes in the acute hospital setting. We sought to determine whether frailty and related factors affected clinical processes such as time to assessment during emergency hospital admission within the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK., Methods: The Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) is an annual cross-sectional day of care survey. SAMBA 2022 was conducted on Thursday 23rd June 2022. We assessed whether the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and presence of a geriatric syndrome affected performance against nationally recognised clinical quality indicators based on time to initial assessment and time to consultant review. CFS was graded into robust (CFS1-3), mild (CFS 4-5), moderate (CFS 6), severe (CFS7-8) and terminal illness (CFS 9). Plausible values were created for missing variables using multi-level multiple imputation. The association was described using mixed effect generalised linear models adjusting for initial National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and time of arrival., Findings: A total of 152 hospitals provided patient level data relating to 7248 emergency medical admissions. Patients with mild, moderate and severe frailty were less likely to be assessed within 4 h of arrival (adjusted OR, mild 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.96, moderate 0.67 95% CI 0.53-0.84, severe, 0.75 95% CI 0.58-0.96, terminally ill 0.59 95% CI 0.23-1.43) and less likely to be achieve the clinical quality indicator for consultant review (adjusted OR, mild 0.69 95% CI 0.58-0.83, moderate 0.55 95% CI 0.44-0.70, severe 0.54 95% CI 0.41-0.69, terminally ill 0.76 95% CI 0.42-1.5). Patients with geriatric syndromes were also less likely to be assessed within 4 h of arrival (adjusted OR 0.66 95% CI 0.56-0.76) or by a consultant within the recommended time frame (adjusted OR 0.45 95% CI 0.39-0.51). The difference was partially explained by differential use of SDEC pathways. Sub-group analysis of 5148 patients assessed outside of SDEC areas demonstrated patients with geriatric syndromes (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.83), but not frailty defined by CFS were less likely to be assessed within 4 h of arrival. Moderate and severe frailty and the presence of a geriatric syndrome were associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving the consultant review standard (moderate, adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94, severe adjusted OR 0.75 95% CI 0.58-0.96, geriatric syndrome adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69)., Interpretation: Frailty is associated with delayed clinical assessment. This association may suggest a systemic issue with clinical prioritisation, with important implications for acute care policy., Funding: The database for SAMBA is funded by the Society for Acute Medicine., Competing Interests: ES has obtained research grants with the Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research. ES has conducted consultancy work for Gilead and honoraria from the European Respiratory Society to deliver a conference lecture. DSL is president of the Hospital at Home Society (unpaid position in professional medical society). MH is a co-applicant on successful National Institute for Health and Care Research grants. MH received honoraria for developing an online learning package on the unconscious patient., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)