Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design.

BACKGROUND: Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. METHODS: This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. RESULTS: The most reported answers to "what matters most (and why)?" were 'getting better or being in good health' (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), 'getting home' (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and 'having a diagnosis' (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals' own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538 .

The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of frailty may be an essential part of evaluation in any healthcare encounter that might result in an escalation of care. The purpose of the study was to assess the frequency and association of frailty with clinical outcomes in patients subject to rapid response team (RRT) review. METHODS: In this multi-national prospective observational cohort study, centres with existing RRTs collected data over a 7-day period, with follow up of all patients at 24 h following their RRT call and at hospital discharge or 30 days following the event trigger (whichever came sooner). Investigators also collected data on the triggers and interventions provided and a bedside assessment on the level of patients' frailty using a clinical frailty scale. RESULTS: Amongst 1133 patients, 40% were screened as frail, which was associated with older age (p < 0.001), admission under a medical speciality (p < 0.001), increased severity of illness at the time of the RRT review (p = 0.0047), and substantially higher frequency of limitations of care (p < 0.001). Importantly, 72% of patients screened as frail were either dead or dependent on hospital care by 30 days (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the significant risk factors for the composite endpoint "poor recovery" (died or were hospital-dependent by 30 days) were age (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.05; p < 0.001), frailty level (p < 0.001), existing limitation of care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; p < 0.001), and the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher frailty scores were associated with increased mortality and dependence on health care at 30 days. Our results indicate that frailty has an influence on the clinical trajectory of deteriorating patients and that such assessment should be included in discussion of goals and expectations of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR5535 . Registered on 23 December 2015.

PRISMA Analysis of 30 Day Readmissions to a Tertiary Cancer Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used as a quality indicator. Patients with cancer have an increased risk of readmission. The purpose of this study was to develop an in depth understanding of the causes of readmissions in patients undergoing cancer treatment using PRISMA methodology and was subsequently used to identify any potentially preventable causes of readmission in this cohort. METHODS: 50 consecutive 30 day readmissions from the 1st November 2014 to the medical admissions unit (MAU) at a specialist tertiary cancer hospital in the Northwest of England were analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: Q25(50%) of the patients were male with a median age of 59 years (range 19-81). PRISMA analysis showed that active (human) factors contributed to the readmission of 4 (8%) of the readmissions, which may have been potentially preventable. All of the readmissions were driven by a medical condition related to the patient's underlying cancer and ongoing cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of readmissions of patients undergoing cancer treatment appear to be related to the underlying condition and, as such, are predictable but not preventable. This suggests that hospital readmission is not a good quality indicator in this cohort of patients.