BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of risk score use in end-of-life settings is unknown, with reports limited to technical properties. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate clinical impact of a validated mortality risk score aimed at informing prognosis and supporting clinicians in decision-making in dementia patients with pneumonia. We performed a trial (n = 69) with physician-reported outcomes referring to the score's aims. Subsequently, physician focus group discussions were planned to better understand barriers to clinical impact, and we surveyed families (n = 50) and nurses practicing in nursing homes (n = 29). We finally consulted with experts and key persons for implementation. RESULTS: Most (71%) physicians who used the score considered it useful, but mainly for its learning effects. Families were never informed of numerical risk estimates. Two focus group discussions revealed a reluctance to use a numerical approach, and physicians found that outcomes conditional on antibiotic treatment were inadequate to support decision-making. Nurses varied in their perceived role in informing families. Most families (88%) wished to be informed, preferring a numerical (43%), verbalized (35%), or other approach (18%) or had no preference (5%). Revising the score, we added an ethical framework for decision-making to acknowledge its complexity, an explanatory note addressing barriers related to physicians' attitudes, and a nurses' form. CONCLUSION: The combined quantitative and qualitative studies elicited: substantial barriers to a numerical approach to physicians' end-of-life decision-making; crucial information for revisions and further score development; and a need for implementation strategies that focus on education.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of risk score use in end-of-life settings is unknown, with reports limited to technical properties. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate clinical impact of a validated mortality risk score aimed at informing prognosis and supporting clinicians in decision-making in dementiapatients with pneumonia. We performed a trial (n = 69) with physician-reported outcomes referring to the score's aims. Subsequently, physician focus group discussions were planned to better understand barriers to clinical impact, and we surveyed families (n = 50) and nurses practicing in nursing homes (n = 29). We finally consulted with experts and key persons for implementation. RESULTS: Most (71%) physicians who used the score considered it useful, but mainly for its learning effects. Families were never informed of numerical risk estimates. Two focus group discussions revealed a reluctance to use a numerical approach, and physicians found that outcomes conditional on antibiotic treatment were inadequate to support decision-making. Nurses varied in their perceived role in informing families. Most families (88%) wished to be informed, preferring a numerical (43%), verbalized (35%), or other approach (18%) or had no preference (5%). Revising the score, we added an ethical framework for decision-making to acknowledge its complexity, an explanatory note addressing barriers related to physicians' attitudes, and a nurses' form. CONCLUSION: The combined quantitative and qualitative studies elicited: substantial barriers to a numerical approach to physicians' end-of-life decision-making; crucial information for revisions and further score development; and a need for implementation strategies that focus on education.
Authors: Jenny T van der Steen; Patricia Lane; Neil W Kowall; Dirk L Knol; Ladislav Volicer Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Emma Wallace; Susan M Smith; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Paul Vaucher; Colin McCowan; Gary Collins; Jan Verbakel; Monica Lakhanpaul; Tom Fahey Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Magnolia Cardona; Michael O'Sullivan; Ebony T Lewis; Robin M Turner; Frances Garden; Hatem Alkhouri; Stephen Asha; John Mackenzie; Margaret Perkins; Sam Suri; Anna Holdgate; Luis Winoto; David C W Chang; Blanca Gallego-Luxan; Sally McCarthy; Ken Hillman; Dorothy Breen Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Miriam L Haaksma; Maria Eriksdotter; Debora Rizzuto; Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; René J F Melis; Sara Garcia-Ptacek Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Simone P Rauh; Martijn W Heymans; David R Mehr; Robin L Kruse; Patricia Lane; Neil W Kowall; Ladislav Volicer; Jenny T van der Steen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Remko M van Eenennaam; Loulou S Koppenol; Willeke J Kruithof; Esther T Kruitwagen-van Reenen; Sotice Pieters; Michael A van Es; Leonard H van den Berg; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Anita Beelen Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2021-11-30