Dong, Yue

Abstract Background The electronic health record (EHR) presents new opportunities for the timely identification of patients at high risk of critical illness and the implementation of preventive strategies. This study aims to externally validate an EHR‐based Elders Risk Assessment (ERA) score to identify older patients at high risk of future critical illness during a primary care visit. Methods This historical cohort study included patients aged ≥65 years who had primary care visits at Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN, between July 2019 and December 2021. The ERA score at the time of the primary care visit was used to predict critical illness, defined as death or ICU admission within 1 year of the visit. Results A total of 12,885 patients were included in the analysis. The median age at the time of the primary care visit was 75 years, with 44.6% being male. 93.7% of participants were White, and 64.2% were married. The median (25th, 75th percentile) ERA score was 4 (0, 9). 11.3% of study participants were admitted to the ICU or died within 1 year of the visit. The ERA score predicted critical illness within 1 year of a primary care visit with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.85), which indicates good discrimination. An ERA score of 9 was identified as optimal for implementing and testing potential preventive strategies, with the odds ratio of having the primary outcome in patients with ERA score ≥9 being 11.33 (95%CI 9.98–12.87). Conclusions This simple EHR‐based risk assessment model can predict critical illness within 1 year of primary care visits in older patients. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for testing and implementation of preventive strategies to promote the well‐being of older adults at risk of critical illness and its consequences.

Objective: Given limited critical care resources and an aging population, early interventions to prevent critical illness are vital. In this work, we measured post-implementation outcomes after introducing a novel electronic scoring system (Elders Risk Assessment—ERA) and a risk-factor checklist, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN), to detect older patients at high risk of critical illness in a primary care setting. Methods: The study was conducted at a family medicine clinic in Kasson, MN. The ADAPT-ITT framework was used to modify the CERTAIN checklist for primary care during 2 co-design workshops involving interdisciplinary clinicians, held in April 2023. The ERA score and modified CERTAIN checklist were implemented between May and July 2023 and identify and assess all patients age ≥60 years at risk of critical illness during their primary care visits. Implementation outcomes were evaluated at the end of the study via an anonymous survey and EHR data extraction. Results: Fourteen clinicians participated in 2 co-design workshops. A total of 19 clinicians participated in a post-pilot survey. All survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. Mean acceptability of the ERA score and checklist was rated 3.35 (SD = 0.75) and 3.09 (SD = 0.64), respectively. Appropriateness had a mean rating of 3.38 (SD = 0.82) for the ERA score and 3.19 (SD = 0.59) for the checklist. Mean feasibility was rated 3.38(SD = 0.85) and 2.92 (SD = 0.76) for the ERA score and checklist, respectively. The adoption rate was 50% (19/38) among clinicians, but the reach was low at 17% (49/289) of eligible patients. Conclusions: This pilot study evaluated the implementation of an intervention that introduced the ERA score and CERTAIN checklist into a primary care practice. Results indicate moderate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ERA score, and similar ratings for the checklist, with slightly lower feasibility. While checklist adoption was moderate, reach was limited, indicating inconsistent use. Recommendations: We plan to use the open-ended resurvey responses to further modify the CERTAIN-FM checklist and implementation process. The ADAPT-ITT framework is a useful model for adapting the checklist to meet the primary care clinician needs.

IMPORTANCE: Initial Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry analysis suggested that improvements in critical care processes offered the greatest modifiable opportunity to improve critically ill COVID-19 patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The Structured Team-based Optimal Patient-Centered Care for Virus COVID-19 ICU Collaborative was created to identify and speed implementation of best evidence based COVID-19 practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 6-month project included volunteer interprofessional teams from VIRUS Registry sites, who received online training on the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury approach, a structured and systematic method for delivering evidence based critical care. Collaborators participated in weekly 1-hour videoconference sessions on high impact topics, monthly quality improvement (QI) coaching sessions, and received extensive additional resources for asynchronous learning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included learner engagement, satisfaction, and number of QI projects initiated by participating teams. RESULTS: Eleven of 13 initial sites participated in the Collaborative from March 2, 2021, to September 29, 2021. A total of 67 learners participated in the Collaborative, including 23 nurses, 22 physicians, 10 pharmacists, nine respiratory therapists, and three nonclinicians. Site attendance among the 11 sites in the 25 videoconference sessions ranged between 82% and 100%, with three sites providing at least one team member for 100% of sessions. The majority reported that topics matched their scope of practice (69%) and would highly recommend the program to colleagues (77%). A total of nine QI projects were initiated across three clinical domains and focused on improving adherence to established critical care practice bundles, reducing nosocomial complications, and strengthening patient- and family-centered care in the ICU. Major factors impacting successful Collaborative engagement included an engaged interprofessional team; an established culture of engagement; opportunities to benchmark performance and accelerate institutional innovation, networking, and acclaim; and ready access to data that could be leveraged for QI purposes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of a virtual platform to establish a learning collaborative to accelerate the identification, dissemination, and implementation of critical care best practices for COVID-19 is feasible. Our experience offers important lessons for future collaborative efforts focused on improving ICU processes of care.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR). DESIGN: Single center randomized crossover study. SETTING: Quaternary care academic hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers. INTERVENTIONS: AMP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments—the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7–10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (–6.11; 95% CI, –7.91 to –4.30 min and –5.38; 95% CI, –7.56 to –3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, –0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, –32.7 to –12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36–1.30; p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians’ performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.