ABSTRACT
Importance: Patients in the emergency department (ED) who are waiting for hospital admission on a wheeled cot may be subject to harm. However, mortality and morbidity among older patients who spend the night in the ED while waiting for a bed in a medical ward are unknown. Objective: To assess whether older adults who spend a night in the ED waiting for admission to a hospital ward are at increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a prospective cohort study of older patients (≥75 years) who visited the ED and were admitted to the hospital on December 12 to 14, 2022, at 97 EDs across France. Two groups were defined and compared: those who stayed in the ED from midnight until 8:00 am (ED group) and those who were admitted to a ward before midnight (ward group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was in-hospital mortality, truncated at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital adverse events (ie, falls, infection, bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, thrombosis, bedsores, and dysnatremia) and hospital length of stay. A generalized linear-regression mixed model was used to compare end points between groups. Results: The total sample comprised 1598 patients (median [IQR] age, 86 [80-90] years; 880 [55%] female and 718 [45%] male), with 707 (44%) in the ED group and 891 (56%) in the ward group. Patients who spent the night in the ED had a higher in-hospital mortality rate of 15.7% vs 11.1% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.81). They also had a higher risk of adverse events compared with the ward group (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.49) and increased median length of stay (9 vs 8 days; rate ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients who required assistance with the activities of daily living, spending the night in the ED was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate (aRR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.25-2.61). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this prospective cohort study indicate that for older patients, waiting overnight in the ED for admission to a ward was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and morbidity, particularly in patients with limited autonomy. Older adults should be prioritized for admission to a ward.
Subject(s)
Activities of Daily Living , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Prospective Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospital MortalityABSTRACT
Introduction: Understanding hypoxemia, with and without the clinical signs of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in COVID-19, is key for management. Hence, from a population of critical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED), we aimed to study silent hypoxemia (Phenotype I) in comparison to symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF (Phenotype II). Methods: This multicenter study was conducted between 1 March and 30 April 2020. Adult patients who were presented to the EDs of nine Great-Eastern French hospitals for confirmed severe or critical COVID-19, who were then directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), were retrospectively included. Results: A total of 423 critical COVID-19 patients were included, out of whom 56.1% presented symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF, whereas 43.9% presented silent hypoxemia. Patients with clinical phenotype II were primarily intubated, initially, in the ED (46%, p < 0.001), whereas those with silent hypoxemia (56.5%, p < 0.001) were primarily intubated in the ICU. Initial univariate analysis revealed higher ICU mortality (29.2% versus 18.8%, p < 0.014) and in-hospital mortality (32.5% versus 18.8%, p < 0.002) in phenotype II. However, multivariate analysis showed no significant differences between the two phenotypes regarding mortality and hospital or ICU length of stay. Conclusions: Silent hypoxemia is explained by various mechanisms, most physiological and unspecific to COVID-19. Survival was found to be comparable in both phenotypes, with decreased survival in favor of Phenotype II. However, the spectrum of silent to symptomatic hypoxemia appears to include a continuum of disease progression, which can brutally evolve into fatal ARF.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: For the past two years, healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies tried to find predictive factors of mortality in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to research age as a predictive factor associated with in-hospital mortality in severe and critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Between 1 March and 20 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients who were all hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We led our study in nine hospitals of northeast France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. Results: The median age of our study population was 66 years (58−72 years). Mortality was 24.6% (CI 95%: 20.6−29%) in the ICU and 26.5% (CI 95%: 22.3−31%) in the hospital. Non-survivors were significantly older (69 versus 64 years, p < 0.001) than the survivors. Although a history of cardio-vascular diseases was more frequent in the non-survivor group (p = 0.015), other underlying conditions and prior level of autonomy did not differ between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, age appeared to be an interesting predictive factor of in-hospital mortality. Thus, age ranges of 65 to 74 years (OR = 2.962, CI 95%: 1.231−7.132, p = 0.015) were predictive of mortality, whereas the group of patients aged over 75 years was not (OR = 3.084, CI 95%: 0.952−9.992, p = 0.06). Similarly, all comorbidities except for immunodeficiency (OR = 4.207, CI 95%: 1.006−17.586, p = 0.049) were not predictive of mortality. Finally, survival follow-up was obtained for the study population. Conclusion: Age appears to be a relevant predictive factor of in-hospital mortality in cases of severe or critical SARS-CoV-2 infection.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and therapeutic emergency mobile service (EMS) management of patients with vital distress due to COVID-19, their in-hospital care pathway and their in-hospital outcome. METHODS: This retrospective and multicentric study was conducted in the six main centers of the French Greater East region, an area heavily impacted by the pandemic. All patients requiring EMS dispatch and who were admitted straight to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included. Clinical data from their pre-hospital and hospital management were retrieved. RESULTS: We included a total of 103 patients (78.6% male, median age 68). In the initial stage, patients were in a critical condition (median oxygen saturation was 72% (60-80%)). In the field, 77.7% (CI 95%: 71.8-88.3%) were intubated. Almost half of our population (45.6%, CI 95%: 37.1-56.9%) had clinical Phenotype 1 (silent hypoxemia), while the remaining half presented Phenotype 2 (acute respiratory failure). In the ICU, a great number had ARDS (77.7%, CI 95% 71.8-88.3% with a PaO2/FiO2 < 200). In-hospital mortality was 33% (CI 95%: 24.6-43.3%). The two phenotypes showed clinical and radiological differences (respiratory rate, OR = 0.98, p = 0.02; CT scan lesion extension >50%, OR = 0.76, p < 0.03). However, no difference was found in terms of overall in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.07, p = 0.74). CONCLUSION: The clinical phenotypes appear to be very distinguishable in the pre-hospital field, yet no difference was found in terms of mortality. This leads us to recommend an identical management in the initial phase, despite the two distinct presentations.
ABSTRACT
The management of a healthcare institution generates risks through the very hazards of the management process. The management of these risks is integrated into the global safety management process and into the strategic thinking of geriatric hospitals.
