Objectives: to compare changes over time in the in-hospital mortality and the mortality from discharge to 30 days post-discharge for six highly prevalent discharge diagnoses in acutely admitted older patients as well as to assess the effect of separately analysing the in-hospital mortality and the mortality from discharge to 30 days post-discharge.Study design and setting: retrospective analysis of Dutch hospital and mortality data collected between 2000 and 2010.Subjects: the participants included 263,746 people, aged 65 years and above, who were acutely admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia or hip fracture.Methods: we compared changes in the in-hospital mortality and mortality from discharge to 30 days post-discharge in the Netherlands using a logistic- and a multinomial regression model.Results: for all six diagnoses, the mortality from admission to 30 days post-discharge declined between 2000 and 2009. The decline ranged from a relative risk ratio (RRR) of 0.41 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38–0.45] for AMI to 0.77 [0.73–0.82] for HF. In separate analyses, the in-hospital mortality decreased for all six diagnoses. The mortality from discharge to 30 days post-discharge in 2009 compared to 2000 depended on the diagnosis, and either declined, remained unchanged or increased.Conclusions: the decline in hospital mortality in acutely admitted older patients was largely attributable to the lower in-hospital mortality, while the change in the mortality from discharge to 30 days post-discharge depended on the diagnosis. Separately reporting the two rate estimates might be more informative than providing an overall hospital mortality rate.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To predict mortality by disability in a sample of 479 Dutch community-dwelling people aged 75 years or older. Methods: A longitudinal study was carried out using a follow-up of seven years. The Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS), a self-reported questionnaire with good psychometric properties, was used for data collection about total disability, disability in activities in daily living (ADL) and disability in instrumental activities in daily living (IADL). The mortality dates were provided by the municipality of Roosendaal (a city in the Netherlands). For analyses of survival, we used Kaplan–Meier analyses and Cox regression analyses to calculate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: All three disability variables (total, ADL and IADL) predicted mortality, unadjusted and adjusted for age and gender. The unadjusted HRs for total, ADL and IADL disability were 1.054 (95%-CI: [1.039;1.069]), 1.091 (95%-CI: [1.062;1.121]) and 1.106 (95%-CI: [1.077;1.135]) with p-values <0.001, respectively. The AUCs were <0.7, ranging from 0.630 (ADL) to 0.668 (IADL). Multivariate analyses including all 18 disability items revealed that only “Do the shopping” predicted mortality. In addition, multivariate analyses focusing on 11 ADL items and 7 IADL items separately showed that only the ADL item “Get around in the house” and the IADL item “Do the shopping” significantly predicted mortality. Conclusion: Disability predicted mortality in a seven years follow-up among Dutch community-dwelling older people. It is important that healthcare professionals are aware of disability at early stages, so they can intervene swiftly, efficiently and effectively, to maintain or enhance the quality of life of older people.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students', nurses', and physicians' estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up.METHODS: The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians.RESULTS: In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.
DOCUMENT
