Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study

Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney, Australia, teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions adminis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety 2018-09, Vol.44 (9), p.505-513
Hauptverfasser: Cardona, Magnolia, Turner, Robin M., Chapman, Amanda, Alkhouri, Hatem, Lewis, Ebony T., Jan, Stephen, Nicholson, Margaret, Parr, Michael, Williamson, Margaret, Hillman, Ken
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 513
container_issue 9
container_start_page 505
container_title Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety
container_volume 44
creator Cardona, Magnolia
Turner, Robin M.
Chapman, Amanda
Alkhouri, Hatem
Lewis, Ebony T.
Jan, Stephen
Nicholson, Margaret
Parr, Michael
Williamson, Margaret
Hillman, Ken
description Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney, Australia, teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions administered, and measure the cost of hospitalization. This was a retrospective cohort of 733 adult inpatients with data for the period three months before and after their last placed RRS call. Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 80 years was conducted. Log-rank, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare survival, and logistic regression was used to examine predictors of death. Overall, 65 (8.9%) patients had a preexisting not-for-resuscitation (NFR) or not-for-RRS order; none of those patients survived to three months. By contrast, patients without an NFR or not-for-RRS order had three-month survival probability of 71% (log-rank χ2 145.63; p < 0.001). Compared with survivors, RRS recipients who died were more likely to be older, to be admitted to a medical ward, and to have a larger mean number of admissions before the RRS. The average cost of hospitalization for the very old transferred to the ICU was higher than for those not requiring treatment in the ICU (US$33,990 vs. US$14,774; p = 0.045). Identifiable risk factors clearly associated with poor clinical outcomes and death can be used as a guide to administer less aggressive treatments, including reconsideration of ICU transfers, adherence to NFR orders, and transition to end-of-life management instead of calls to the RRS team.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.04.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2098768840</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1553725017304506</els_id><sourcerecordid>2098768840</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b4a06f650d6eaa60136a4c60f27d5cbd4ce95fd01784a2f31f40067b665418b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFq3DAQhk1padK0L9BD0bEXOyNLlr1QKJslbQJLAklKexOyNMrKrC1H0gb27atl0xx7mjn838_MVxSfKVQUqDgfqkEPT1UNtKuAVwD0TXFKF6wrKaN_3ua9aVjZ1g2cFB9iHACYEIvufXHCMi6A8dNi_r3x5AIntC5FYoMfyfLxMWCM7hnJnZqdIXcYZz9FJPf7mHAkDwFVGnHKwA2qQNIGyeVkiLdk7Sx-J8uMpODjjDodalZ-40Mi92ln9h-Ld1ZtI356mWfFrx-XD6urcn3783q1XJeaNSKVPVcgrGjACFRKAGVCcS3A1q1pdG-4xkVjDdC246q2jFoOINpeiIbTrm_ZWfH12DsH_7TDmOToosbtVk3od1HWsOha0XUccrQ-RnW-OQa0cg5uVGEvKciDaTnIg2l5MC2By2w6Q19e-nf9iOYV-ac2B74dA5i_fHYYZNQOJ43GhexFGu_-1_8XR22PWg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2098768840</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cardona, Magnolia ; Turner, Robin M. ; Chapman, Amanda ; Alkhouri, Hatem ; Lewis, Ebony T. ; Jan, Stephen ; Nicholson, Margaret ; Parr, Michael ; Williamson, Margaret ; Hillman, Ken</creator><creatorcontrib>Cardona, Magnolia ; Turner, Robin M. ; Chapman, Amanda ; Alkhouri, Hatem ; Lewis, Ebony T. ; Jan, Stephen ; Nicholson, Margaret ; Parr, Michael ; Williamson, Margaret ; Hillman, Ken</creatorcontrib><description>Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney, Australia, teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions administered, and measure the cost of hospitalization. This was a retrospective cohort of 733 adult inpatients with data for the period three months before and after their last placed RRS call. Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 80 years was conducted. Log-rank, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare survival, and logistic regression was used to examine predictors of death. Overall, 65 (8.9%) patients had a preexisting not-for-resuscitation (NFR) or not-for-RRS order; none of those patients survived to three months. By contrast, patients without an NFR or not-for-RRS order had three-month survival probability of 71% (log-rank χ2 145.63; p &lt; 0.001). Compared with survivors, RRS recipients who died were more likely to be older, to be admitted to a medical ward, and to have a larger mean number of admissions before the RRS. The average cost of hospitalization for the very old transferred to the ICU was higher than for those not requiring treatment in the ICU (US$33,990 vs. US$14,774; p = 0.045). Identifiable risk factors clearly associated with poor clinical outcomes and death can be used as a guide to administer less aggressive treatments, including reconsideration of ICU transfers, adherence to NFR orders, and transition to end-of-life management instead of calls to the RRS team.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-7250</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-131X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.04.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30166034</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Australia ; Female ; Hospital Charges - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Hospital Rapid Response Team - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Hospitals, Teaching ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Acuity ; Resuscitation Orders ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Terminal Care - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2018-09, Vol.44 (9), p.505-513</ispartof><rights>2018 The Joint Commission</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b4a06f650d6eaa60136a4c60f27d5cbd4ce95fd01784a2f31f40067b665418b73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b4a06f650d6eaa60136a4c60f27d5cbd4ce95fd01784a2f31f40067b665418b73</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8241-0166</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30166034$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cardona, Magnolia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Robin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapman, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkhouri, Hatem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Ebony T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jan, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parr, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hillman, Ken</creatorcontrib><title>Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study</title><title>Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety</title><addtitle>Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf</addtitle><description>Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney, Australia, teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions administered, and measure the cost of hospitalization. This was a retrospective cohort of 733 adult inpatients with data for the period three months before and after their last placed RRS call. Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 80 years was conducted. Log-rank, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare survival, and logistic regression was used to examine predictors of death. Overall, 65 (8.9%) patients had a preexisting not-for-resuscitation (NFR) or not-for-RRS order; none of those patients survived to three months. By contrast, patients without an NFR or not-for-RRS order had three-month survival probability of 71% (log-rank χ2 145.63; p &lt; 0.001). Compared with survivors, RRS recipients who died were more likely to be older, to be admitted to a medical ward, and to have a larger mean number of admissions before the RRS. The average cost of hospitalization for the very old transferred to the ICU was higher than for those not requiring treatment in the ICU (US$33,990 vs. US$14,774; p = 0.045). Identifiable risk factors clearly associated with poor clinical outcomes and death can be used as a guide to administer less aggressive treatments, including reconsideration of ICU transfers, adherence to NFR orders, and transition to end-of-life management instead of calls to the RRS team.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospital Charges - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Hospital Rapid Response Team - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Hospitals, Teaching</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Acuity</subject><subject>Resuscitation Orders</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Terminal Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1553-7250</issn><issn>1938-131X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFq3DAQhk1padK0L9BD0bEXOyNLlr1QKJslbQJLAklKexOyNMrKrC1H0gb27atl0xx7mjn838_MVxSfKVQUqDgfqkEPT1UNtKuAVwD0TXFKF6wrKaN_3ua9aVjZ1g2cFB9iHACYEIvufXHCMi6A8dNi_r3x5AIntC5FYoMfyfLxMWCM7hnJnZqdIXcYZz9FJPf7mHAkDwFVGnHKwA2qQNIGyeVkiLdk7Sx-J8uMpODjjDodalZ-40Mi92ln9h-Ld1ZtI356mWfFrx-XD6urcn3783q1XJeaNSKVPVcgrGjACFRKAGVCcS3A1q1pdG-4xkVjDdC246q2jFoOINpeiIbTrm_ZWfH12DsH_7TDmOToosbtVk3od1HWsOha0XUccrQ-RnW-OQa0cg5uVGEvKciDaTnIg2l5MC2By2w6Q19e-nf9iOYV-ac2B74dA5i_fHYYZNQOJ43GhexFGu_-1_8XR22PWg</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Cardona, Magnolia</creator><creator>Turner, Robin M.</creator><creator>Chapman, Amanda</creator><creator>Alkhouri, Hatem</creator><creator>Lewis, Ebony T.</creator><creator>Jan, Stephen</creator><creator>Nicholson, Margaret</creator><creator>Parr, Michael</creator><creator>Williamson, Margaret</creator><creator>Hillman, Ken</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8241-0166</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study</title><author>Cardona, Magnolia ; Turner, Robin M. ; Chapman, Amanda ; Alkhouri, Hatem ; Lewis, Ebony T. ; Jan, Stephen ; Nicholson, Margaret ; Parr, Michael ; Williamson, Margaret ; Hillman, Ken</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-b4a06f650d6eaa60136a4c60f27d5cbd4ce95fd01784a2f31f40067b665418b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospital Charges - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Hospital Rapid Response Team - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Hospitals, Teaching</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Acuity</topic><topic>Resuscitation Orders</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Terminal Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cardona, Magnolia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Robin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapman, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkhouri, Hatem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Ebony T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jan, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parr, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hillman, Ken</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cardona, Magnolia</au><au>Turner, Robin M.</au><au>Chapman, Amanda</au><au>Alkhouri, Hatem</au><au>Lewis, Ebony T.</au><au>Jan, Stephen</au><au>Nicholson, Margaret</au><au>Parr, Michael</au><au>Williamson, Margaret</au><au>Hillman, Ken</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study</atitle><jtitle>Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety</jtitle><addtitle>Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>505</spage><epage>513</epage><pages>505-513</pages><issn>1553-7250</issn><eissn>1938-131X</eissn><abstract>Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney, Australia, teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions administered, and measure the cost of hospitalization. This was a retrospective cohort of 733 adult inpatients with data for the period three months before and after their last placed RRS call. Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 80 years was conducted. Log-rank, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare survival, and logistic regression was used to examine predictors of death. Overall, 65 (8.9%) patients had a preexisting not-for-resuscitation (NFR) or not-for-RRS order; none of those patients survived to three months. By contrast, patients without an NFR or not-for-RRS order had three-month survival probability of 71% (log-rank χ2 145.63; p &lt; 0.001). Compared with survivors, RRS recipients who died were more likely to be older, to be admitted to a medical ward, and to have a larger mean number of admissions before the RRS. The average cost of hospitalization for the very old transferred to the ICU was higher than for those not requiring treatment in the ICU (US$33,990 vs. US$14,774; p = 0.045). Identifiable risk factors clearly associated with poor clinical outcomes and death can be used as a guide to administer less aggressive treatments, including reconsideration of ICU transfers, adherence to NFR orders, and transition to end-of-life management instead of calls to the RRS team.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>30166034</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.04.001</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8241-0166</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1553-7250
ispartof Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2018-09, Vol.44 (9), p.505-513
issn 1553-7250
1938-131X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2098768840
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Australia
Female
Hospital Charges - statistics & numerical data
Hospital Rapid Response Team - statistics & numerical data
Hospitals, Teaching
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Acuity
Resuscitation Orders
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Terminal Care - statistics & numerical data
Young Adult
title Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T12%3A13%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Who%20Benefits%20from%20Aggressive%20Rapid%20Response%20System%20Treatments%20Near%20the%20End%20of%20Life?%20A%20Retrospective%20Cohort%20Study&rft.jtitle=Joint%20Commission%20journal%20on%20quality%20and%20patient%20safety&rft.au=Cardona,%20Magnolia&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=505&rft.epage=513&rft.pages=505-513&rft.issn=1553-7250&rft.eissn=1938-131X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.04.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2098768840%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2098768840&rft_id=info:pmid/30166034&rft_els_id=S1553725017304506&rfr_iscdi=true