Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38389106›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2024

Advancing screening tool for hospice needs and end-of-life decision-making process in the emergency department.

Yu-Jing Wang, Chen-Yang Hsu, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Hsiu-Hsi Chen, Chao-Chih Lai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yu-Jing WangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei City Hospital, Taiwan. No. 10, Sec. 4, Ren-Ai Road, Ren-Ai Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen-Yang HsuMaster of Public Health Program, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Amy Ming-Fang YenSchool of Oral Hygiene, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Hsi ChenInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chao-Chih LaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei City Hospital, Taiwan. No. 10, Sec. 4, Ren-Ai Road, Ren-Ai Branch, Taipei, Taiwan. chaochin@ms1.hinet.net.
National Taiwan University · TWChina Medical University Hospital · TWTaipei Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting mortality in the emergency department (ED) is imperative to guide palliative care and end-of-life decisions. However, the clinical usefulness of utilizing the existing screening tools still leaves something to be desired.

methodsWe advanced the screening tool with the A-qCPR (Age, qSOFA (quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment), cancer, Performance Status Scale, and DNR (Do-Not-Resuscitate) risk score model for predicting one-year mortality in the emergency department of Taipei City Hospital of Taiwan with the potential of hospice need and evaluated its performance compared with the existing screening model. We adopted a large retrospective cohort in conjunction with in-time (the trained and the holdout validation cohort) for the development of the A-qCPR model and out-of-time validation sample for external validation and model robustness to variation with the calendar year.

resultsA total of 10,474 patients were enrolled in the training cohort and 33,182 patients for external validation. Significant risk scores included age (0.05 per year), qSOFA ≥ 2 (4), Cancer (5), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score ≥ 2 (2), and DNR status (2). One-year mortality rates were 13.6% for low (score ≦ 3 points), 29.9% for medium (3 < Score ≦ 9 points), and 47.1% for high categories (Score > 9 points). The AUROC curve for the in-time validation sample was 0.76 (0.74-0.78). However, the corresponding figure was slightly shrunk to 0.69 (0.69-0.70) based on out-of-time validation. The accuracy with our newly developed A-qCPR model was better than those existing tools including 0.57 (0.56-0.57) by using SQ (surprise question), 0.54 (0.54-0.54) by using qSOFA, and 0.59 (0.59-0.59) by using ECOG performance status score. Applying the A-qCPR model to emergency departments since 2017 has led to a year-on-year increase in the proportion of patients or their families signing DNR documents, which had not been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionsThe A-qCPR model is not only effective in predicting one-year mortality but also in identifying hospice needs. Advancing the screening tool that has been widely used for hospice in various scenarios is particularly helpful for facilitating the end-of-life decision-making process in the ED.

Indexed as

HospicesNeoplasmsDeathEmergency Service, HospitalHumansPandemicsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesDecision-makingEmergency departmentEnd of life careHospice carePalliative carePhysical performancePrognosisResuscitation ordersRetrospective study

Identifiers

PMID38389106
PMCPMC10885365
OpenAlexW4392108695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.