Hospital Guardianship: A Quality Needs Assessment of "Unbefriended" Patients Who Lack Decisional Capacity.

BACKGROUND: The "unbefriended" patient does not demonstrate capacity to make their own medical decisions, does not have an advance directive, and lacks a surrogate decision maker. For these patients without a designated health care proxy, hospitals may need to petition for public guardianship, a notoriously arduous process with undefined impact on hospital resources. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics, system needs, and financial impact of unrepresented inpatients in an academic, tertiary care, urban medical center. METHODS: The Northwestern Memorial Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee approved a systematic needs assessment. Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients admitted from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2019 for whom the hospital petitioned for a public guardian. RESULTS: From fiscal years 2014 to 2019, 156 patients were petitioned for public guardianship. The number of cases rose sequentially from 8 in 2014 to 44 in 2019. The 2 most common conditions that impaired capacity were neurocognitive disorders (56.4%) and psychotic disorders (17.9%). The psychiatry consultation service consulted 71.2% of cases vs 71.1%. There were 2347 medically unnecessary hospital days related to the pursuit of guardianship, and the associated costs to the health system were estimated to be more than $5.8 million. CONCLUSIONS: The number of unbefriended patients who lacked decisional capacity necessitating public guardianship dramatically escalated over 5 years. These patients had high rates of homelessness and psychiatric illness, consistent with previous research. Further investigation is needed to understand and address the needs of this vulnerable population.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Pelvic Pain After Mesh Implant Surgery for the Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess incidence and risk factors for pelvic pain after pelvic mesh implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Single university hospital. PATIENTS: Women who have undergone surgery with pelvic mesh implant for treatment of pelvic floor disorders including prolapse and incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Telephone interviews to assess pain, sexual function, and general health. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain was measured by the McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire for somatic pain, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory for neuropathic pain, Pennebaker Inventory of Limbic Languidness for somatization, and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) for sexual health and dyspareunia. General health was assessed with the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey. Among 160 enrolled women, mean time since surgery was 20.8 ± 10.5 months, mean age was 62.1 ± 11.2 years, 93.8% were white, 86.3% were postmenopausal, and 3.1% were tobacco users. Types of mesh included midurethral sling for stress incontinence (78.8%), abdominal/robotic sacrocolpopexy (35.7%), transvaginal for prolapse (6.3%), and perirectal for fecal incontinence (1.9%), with 23.8% concomitant mesh implants for both prolapse and incontinence. Our main outcome, self-reported pelvic pain at least 1 year after surgery, was 15.6%. Women reporting pain were younger, with fibromyalgia, worse physical health, higher somatization, and lower surgery satisfaction (all p < .05). Current pelvic pain correlated with early postoperative pelvic pain (p < .001), fibromyalgia (p = .002), worse physical health (p = .003), and somatization (p = .003). Sexual function was suboptimal (mean FSFI, 16.2 ± 12.1). Only 54.0% were sexually active, with 19.0% of those reporting dyspareunia. CONCLUSION: One in 6 women reported de novo pelvic pain after pelvic mesh implant surgery, with decreased sexual function. Risk factors included younger age, fibromyalgia, early postoperative pain, poorer physical health, and somatization. Understanding risk factors for pelvic pain after mesh implantation may improve patient selection.