IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Short-term mortality in older medical emergency patients can be predicted using clinical intuition: A prospective study

Author

Listed:
  • Noortje Zelis
  • Arisja N Mauritz
  • Lonne I J Kuijpers
  • Jacqueline Buijs
  • Peter W de Leeuw
  • Patricia M Stassen

Abstract

Background: Older emergency department (ED) patients are at risk for adverse outcomes, however, it is hard to predict these. We aimed to assess the discriminatory value of clinical intuition, operationalized as disease perception, self-rated health and first clinical impression, including the 30-day surprise question (SQ: “Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days” of patients, nurses and physicians. Endpoints used to evaluate the discriminatory value of clinical intuition were short-term (30-day) mortality and other adverse outcomes (intensive/medium care admission, prolonged length of hospital stay, loss of independent living or 30-day readmission). Methods: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, older medical patients (≥65 years), nurses and physicians filled in scores regarding severity of illness and their concerns (i.e. disease perception and clinical impression scores) immediately after arrival of the patient in the ED. In addition, patients filled in a self-rated health score and nurses and physicians answered the SQ. Area under the curves (AUCs) of receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) were calculated. Results: The median age of the 602 included patients was 79 years and 86.7% were community dwelling. Within 30 days, 66 (11.0%) patients died and 263 (43.7%) patients met the composite endpoint. The severity of concern score of both nurses and physicians yielded the highest AUCs for 30-day mortality (for both 0.75; 95%CI 0.68–0.81). AUCs for the severity of illness score and SQ of nurses and physicians ranged from 0.71 to 0.74 while those for the disease perception and self-rated health of patients ranged from 0.64 to 0.69. The discriminatory value of the scores for the composite endpoint was lower (AUCs ranging from 0.60 to 0.67). We used scores that have not been previously validated which could influence their generalisability. Conclusion: Clinical intuition,—disease perception, self-rated health and first clinical impression—documented at an early stage after arrival in the ED, is a useful clinical tool to predict mortality and other adverse outcomes in older ED patients. Highest discriminatory values were found for the nurses’ and physicians’ severity of concern score. Intuition may be helpful for the implementation of personalised medical care in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Noortje Zelis & Arisja N Mauritz & Lonne I J Kuijpers & Jacqueline Buijs & Peter W de Leeuw & Patricia M Stassen, 2019. "Short-term mortality in older medical emergency patients can be predicted using clinical intuition: A prospective study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208741
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208741
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208741&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208741?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208741. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.