Literature DB >> 24170692

The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol is a poor predictor of in-hospital mortality.

N A O'Regan1, L Healy, M O Cathail, T W Law, G O'Carroll, J Clare, S Timmons, K A O'Connor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) proposes admission criteria based only on physiological and laboratory parameters and has recently informed an Irish national bed utilisation review. Severity of illness tools can be poorly predictive of outcomes, particularly in older patients. AIMS: To assess the clinical utility of the AEP in moribund older and younger patients.
METHODS: The study was conducted in four acute hospitals in South Munster, Ireland, and was of retrospective analytical cohort study design. The Hospital In-Patient Enquiry Scheme was used to ascertain patients who died within 10 days of hospital admission, over a 2-year period. Proximate death was used as a robust measure of validity of admission. Emergency department (ED) records were screened retrospectively to allocate the AEP criteria.
RESULTS: There were 803 eligible in-hospital deaths. Establishment of AEP criteria was available in 72.9 % (585 patients, 50.8 % female). The median length of stay until death was 4 days. Just over 30 % (179/585) of patients did not meet AEP criteria, two-fifths (72/179) of whom had been coded as severely unwell on arrival to the ED. There was no significant difference in AEP identification rates between older and younger age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates that the AEP is a poor predictor of mortality in all age groups, having failed to identify approximately one-third of our cohort. Based on our findings, we feel that this tool should not be used to assess the appropriateness of admission.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24170692     DOI: 10.1007/s11845-013-1031-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ir J Med Sci        ISSN: 0021-1265            Impact factor:   1.568


  14 in total

1.  Early detection of patients at risk (PART)

Authors:  M M Wright; C W Stenhouse; R J Morgan
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.955

2.  Inappropriately delayed discharge from hospital: what do we know?

Authors:  Norman Vetter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-26

3.  A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for elderly patients with severe pneumonia.

Authors:  P Sikka; W M Jaafar; E Bozkanat; A A El-Solh
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Appropriateness versus efficiency: the economics of utilisation review.

Authors:  J Coast
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Reliability and validity of utilization review criteria. Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol, Standardized Medreview Instrument, and Intensity-Severity-Discharge criteria.

Authors:  I Strumwasser; N V Paranjpe; D L Ronis; D Share; L J Sell
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Does utilization review reduce unnecessary hospital care and contain costs?

Authors:  T M Wickizer; J R Wheeler; P J Feldstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  The appropriateness evaluation protocol: a technique for assessing unnecessary days of hospital care.

Authors:  P M Gertman; J D Restuccia
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Inappropriate admissions: thoughts of patients and referring doctors.

Authors:  J Campbell
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Effect of introducing the Modified Early Warning score on clinical outcomes, cardio-pulmonary arrests and intensive care utilisation in acute medical admissions.

Authors:  C P Subbe; R G Davies; E Williams; P Rutherford; L Gemmell
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 6.955

10.  The characteristics and prognosis of patients fulfilling the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol in a medical admission unit; a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Mikkel Brabrand; Torben Knudsen; Jesper Hallas
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.