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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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.

Estratificación pronóstica y abordaje asistencial de los pacientes pluripatológicos / Prognostic stratification and healthcare approach in patients with multiple pathologies

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 (AU)

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 (AU)

Valor diagnóstico de un cuestionario de Pfeiffer simplificado en pacientes pluripatológicos / Diagnostic value of a simplified Pfeiffer questionnaire for polypathological patients

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 (AU)

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 (AU)

Diagnostic value of a simplified Pfeiffer questionnaire for polypathological patients. / Valor diagnóstico de un cuestionario de Pfeiffer simplificado en pacientes pluripatológicos.

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. / Estratificación pronóstica y abordaje asistencial de los pacientes pluripatológicos.

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.

Validation of PROFUND prognostic index over a four-year follow-up period.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The PROFUND index stratifies accurately the 12-month mortality risk of polypathological patients (PPs), but its fitness over a longer follow-up period remains unknown. We aimed to explore the calibration and discrimination power of PROFUND index over 4-years, in order to assess its follow-up interval generalizability. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort-study. SETTING: 33 Spanish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: PPs included after hospital discharge, outpatient clinics, or home hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality over a 4-year follow-up period. METHODS: PROFUND index calibration was assessed by risk-quartiles predicted/observed mortality (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test), and its discrimination power by ROC curves. RESULTS: A total of 768 patients were included (630 [82%] of them completed the 4-year follow-up). Global mortality rate was 63.5%. When assessing individual patient scores, mortality was 52% in the lowest risk group (0-2 points in PROFUND score); 73.5% in the low-intermediate risk group (3-6 points), 85% in the intermediate-high group (7-10 points); and 92% in the highest risk group (≥11 points). Accuracy testing of the PROFUND index showed good calibration (P=.8 in the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test), and also a good discrimination power (AUC=0.71 [0.67-0.77] in ROC curve). CONCLUSIONS: The PROFUND index maintained its accuracy in predicting mortality of polypathological patients over a 4-year follow-up period. This index may be of potential usefulness in deciding the most appropriate health-care interventions in populations with multimorbidity.

Comorbilidad, discapacidad y mortalidad en pacientes pluripatológicos con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica / Comorbidity, discapacity and mortality in patients with multiple conditions and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Objetivo. Estudiar la asociación entre diferentes comorbilidades y condiciones clínicas con la mortalidad en pacientes pluripatológicos (PPP) con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC). Pacientes y métodos Estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico. Se han incluido pacientes consecutivos con EPOC y criterios de PPP. Se han recogido las variables: edad, sexo, índice de Charlson, comorbilidades, índice de Barthel, índice de Lawton-Brody, test de Pfeiffer, escala de Gijón, nivel de educación, hospitalizaciones en los últimos 3 y 12 meses y supervivencia al cabo de un año. Mediante un análisis univariante y una regresión logística se ha establecido la relación de las variables con la mortalidad. Resultados. Se han incluido 688 PPP con EPOC con edad media 77,9 años. La puntuación media (DE) en el índice de Charlson fue 3,99 (2,07). Las comorbilidades más frecuentes son insuficiencia cardiaca (59%), diabetes (48%), infarto de miocardio (29,4%), insuficiencia renal moderada (22%), enfermedad cerebrovascular (19%), hipertensión arterial (71%), anemia (62%), fibrilación auricular (34%), dislipemia (28%) y obesidad (21%). El 26% tenía dependencia para las actividades básicas de la vida diaria, el 47% precisaba de un cuidador y el 54% tenía riesgo de problema social. Al cabo de un año fallecieron 258 pacientes (37%). El índice de Charlson, la dependencia para las actividades de la vida diaria y la anemia se asocian con una mayor mortalidad y la hipertensión arterial y saber leer y escribir con menor mortalidad. Conclusiones. La comorbilidad y la discapacidad son dos factores pronósticos en los pacientes con EPOC(AU)

Aims. To determine the association between different comorbidities and other clinical conditions with mortality in patients with multiple diseases (PMD) suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Subjects and methods. Patients with COPD and PMD criteria were included in an observational, prospective and multicentrer study. Data on age, gender, Charlson index, Barthel index, Lawton-Brody index, Pfeiffer test, sociofamilial Gijon scale, education level, hospitalizations during the previous 3 and 12 months and survival at one year were collected. The relationship between the variables and mortality were established by means of a univariate analysis and logistic regression model. Results. A total of 688 PMD with COPD and mean age of 77.9 years were included. The mean score one the Charlson index was 3.99 (2.07). The most frequent comorbidities were heart failure (59%), diabetes (48%), myocardial infarction (29%), moderate kidney failure (22%), cerebrovascular disease (19%), hypertension (71%), anemia (62%), atrial fibrillation (34%), dyslipidemia (28%) and obesity (21%). A total of 26% of patients were dependent for activities of daily living, 47% needed a caregiver and 54% were at risk of having social problems. At one year, 258 patients (37%) had died. The Charlson index, dependency for activities of daily living and anemia were associated with mortality and hypertension and capacity for reading and writing were associated with survival(AU)

[Comorbidity, discapacity and mortality in patients with multiple conditions and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. / Comorbilidad, discapacidad y mortalidad en pacientes pluripatológicos con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica.

AIMS: To determine the association between different comorbidities and other clinical conditions with mortality in patients with multiple diseases (PMD) suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with COPD and PMD criteria were included in an observational, prospective and multicentrer study. Data on age, gender, Charlson index, Barthel index, Lawton-Brody index, Pfeiffer test, sociofamilial Gijon scale, education level, hospitalizations during the previous 3 and 12 months and survival at one year were collected. The relationship between the variables and mortality were established by means of a univariate analysis and logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 688 PMD with COPD and mean age of 77.9 years were included. The mean score one the Charlson index was 3.99 (2.07). The most frequent comorbidities were heart failure (59%), diabetes (48%), myocardial infarction (29%), moderate kidney failure (22%), cerebrovascular disease (19%), hypertension (71%), anemia (62%), atrial fibrillation (34%), dyslipidemia (28%) and obesity (21%). A total of 26% of patients were dependent for activities of daily living, 47% needed a caregiver and 54% were at risk of having social problems. At one year, 258 patients (37%) had died. The Charlson index, dependency for activities of daily living and anemia were associated with mortality and hypertension and capacity for reading and writing were associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity and discapacity are two prognostic factors in COPD patients.

Development of a new predictive model for polypathological patients. The PROFUND index.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern about the accuracy of the available prognostic indexes when applying them to the emergent population of polypathological patients (PP). METHODS: To develop a 1-year mortality predictive index on PP, we developed a multicenter prospective cohort-study recruiting 1.632 PP after hospital discharge, outpatient clinics, or home hospitalization, from 33 hospitals. Potential risk factors were obtained in the 1.525 PP who completed follow-up. Each factor independently associated with mortality in the derivation cohort (757 PP from western hospitals) was assigned a weight, and risk scores were calculated by adding the points of each factor. Accuracy was assessed in the validation cohort (768 PP from eastern hospitals) by risk quartiles calibration, and discrimination power, by ROC curves. Finally, accuracy of the index was compared with that of the Charlson index. RESULTS: Mortality in the derivation/validation cohorts was 35%/39.5%, respectively. Nine independent mortality predictors were identified to create the index (age ≥85 years, 3 points; No caregiver or caregiver other than spouse, 2 points; active neoplasia, 6 points; dementia, 3 points; III-IV functional class on NYHA and/or MRC, 3 points; delirium during last hospital admission, 3 points; hemoglobinemia <10 g/dl, 3 points; Barthel index <60 points, 4 points; ≥4 hospital admissions in last 12 months, 3 points). Mortality in the derivation/validation cohorts was 12.1%/14.6% for patients with 0-2 points; 21.5%/31.5% for those with 3-6 points; 45%/50% for those with 7-10 points; and 68%/61.3% for those with ≥11 points, respectively. Calibration was good in derivation/validation cohorts, and discrimination power by area under the curve was 0.77/0.7. Calibration of the Charlson index was good, but discrimination power was suboptimal (area under the curve, 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: This prognostic index provides an accurate and transportable method of stratifying 1-year death risk in PP.

Peeking through the cracks: an assessment of the prevalence, clinical characteristics and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of people with polypathology in a hospital setting.

Little is known about the prevalence of the recently defined polypathology notion in hospital populations. Patients admitted to medical wards were assessed using established criteria of polypathology. Prevalence of polypathology, interobserver reliability, clinical features, nutritional status, and HRQoL were assessed using clinical data and interview, mini-nutritional assessment (MNA), and the 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) scales. Of a total of 812 patients studied, 196 (24%) met polypathology criteria (65% men, of mean age 71.3+/-11.6 years, mean defining chronic diseases 2.4+/-0.046, and other comorbidities 2.6+/-0.094). Interobserver reliability for the detection of cases was good (kappa=0.628). Their mean Charlson index/prescribed drugs were 3.3/6, respectively. Severe dyspnea, delirium, or active neoplasia were present in 44, 15, and 11%. A bad nutritional status/risk of malnutrition was evident in 10.3/52.6%, and correlated with the number of previous hospitalizations (p=0.041), and the presence of active neoplasia (p=0.037). Mean physical/mental summaries of HRQoL were 33.9+/-10, and 42+/-13, and correlated with a better nutritional status (p=0.011, and p=0.001, respectively). Polypathology affects one quarter of inpatients in a hospital setting, and can be easily and reliably identified. The diversity and complexity of patient needs underscore the need for continuity of care between community and hospital, crossing sub-speciality lines and institutional boundaries.