Literature DB >> 8099377

Does prediction of outcome alter patient management?

L S Murray1, G M Teasdale, G D Murray, B Jennett, J D Miller, J D Pickard, M D Shaw, J Achilles, S Bailey, P Jones.   

Abstract

A patient's prognosis is a key factor for the clinicians involved in management. We set out to determine if provision of computer-based predictions of outcome after severe head injury resulted in measurable changes in patient management. In particular, we wondered whether introduction of the predictive system would alter the relation between severity of injury and "intensity" of management. 1025 patients admitted to four British neurosurgical units between 1986 and 1989 following a severe head injury, and who were either in coma for 6 h or had an operation for acute intracranial haematoma, were studied. Specified aspects of intensive management were recorded and all patients were followed up after six months. The study had three phases: a baseline period of at least one year before the introduction of computer-based outcome prediction, one year when predictions were provided at specified times, and a final six months when prediction was withdrawn. While predictions were being provided, there was an increase in the use of specified aspects of intensive care in patients predicted to have a good outcome, but a 39% reduction in the use of these same aspects of intensive care in patients predicted to have the worst outcome. There was no evidence that the provision of predictions affected overall outcome, length of stay, or the recording of explicit decisions to limit treatment. We have demonstrated that the introduction of a routine prediction service can alter patient management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8099377     DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)90631-p

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  22 in total

1.  'End-of-life' decision making within intensive care--objective, consistent, defensible?

Authors:  A J Ravenscroft; M D Bell
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Ethical aspects of determining and communicating prognosis in critical care.

Authors:  James L Bernat
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 3.  Worldwide similarities and differences in the foregoing of life-sustaining treatments.

Authors:  C L Sprung; L A Eidelman
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Observations on Ethical Issues in the Neuro-ICU.

Authors:  James L Bernat
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 5.  [Outcome in traumatic brain injury : Considered from a neurological viewpoint].

Authors:  B Beck
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 6.  Head injury.

Authors:  G M Teasdale
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 10.154

7.  Commentary: dangerous patients or dangerous diseases?

Authors:  P J Taylor; J Monahan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-04-13

8.  Rehabilitation outcome of unconscious traumatic brain injury patients.

Authors:  Anke-Maria Klein; Kaitlen Howell; Jana Vogler; Eva Grill; Andreas Straube; Andreas Bender
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 5.269

9.  Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients.

Authors:  Pablo Perel; Miguel Arango; Tim Clayton; Phil Edwards; Edward Komolafe; Stuart Poccock; Ian Roberts; Haleema Shakur; Ewout Steyerberg; Surakrant Yutthakasemsunt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-02-12

10.  Can the experienced ICU physician predict ICU length of stay and outcome better than less experienced colleagues?

Authors:  Fábio Gusmão Vicente; Frederico Polito Lomar; Christian Mélot; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-01-21       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.