Observational studyBMC palliative care2024
Promoting early goals of care conversations in the CICU with a surprise question-based EHR workflow.
Observational study in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Surprise Question (SQ) - Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next 6 months? - is a validated tool for mortality prediction. The Mount Sinai Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) incorporated the SQ into a novel EHR workflow to identify patients who would benefit from early initiation of Palliative Care (PC).
methodsImplementation of the SQ proceeded in two steps. During the feasibility pilot (December 2021-March 2022), providers answered the SQ using an EXCEL spreadsheet for all CICU patients, without changing other workflows. In April 2022, the CICU launched a new workflow-column built into the Epic patient-list dashboard with the SQ as the backbone. For patients with SQ answers of "NO," providers were prompted to facilitate and document a goals of care (GOC) conversation. We conducted a retrospective, observational, quasi-experimental study of all admissions to the CICU with SQ = NO between December 2021-September 2022. Clinical data was obtained via EHR query and chart review. We compared the frequency and timing of GOC conversations and the likelihood of redirected GOC (defined as code status change and/or hospice discharge) during the 3-month pilot versus the 6-month implementation period.
results195 admissions were included: median [IQR] age 72.0 [61.0, 84.0] years; LOS > 5 days 43.6%; CICU mortality 17.9%. These clinical characteristics were comparable between the pilot (N = 57) and implementation (N = 138) periods. However, ICU interventions (i.e. mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy) were more common among the pilot cohort (52.6% vs. 33.3%, p = .015). For the primary outcomes, compared to the pilot period, there was a significantly higher frequency of GOC conversations (61.4% vs. 81.2%, p = .004) and GOC conversations < 2 days from CICU admission (40.4% vs. 61.6%, p = .007) in the intervention period. There was no difference in the likelihood of redirected GOC towards comfort or no escalation (28.1% vs. 21.0%, p = .288).
conclusionWe facilitated earlier GOC conversations directed to critically ill patients with high mortality risk by integrating the SQ into the EHR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.