Impact of the MEESSI-AHF tool to guide disposition decision-making in patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department: a before-and-after study
To determine the impact of risk stratification using the MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with acute heart failure) scale to guide disposition decision-making on the outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and assess...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Conselleria de Salut i Consum del Govern de les Illes Balears |
| Repositorio: | Docusalut |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docusalut.com:20.500.13003/20135 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13003/20135 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Aftercare Aged, 80 and over Male Prospective Studies Emergency Service, Hospital Acute Disease Adult Female Hospital Mortality Humans Patient Discharge Heart Failure Insuficiencia Cardíaca Humanos Estudios Prospectivos Mortalidad Hospitalaria Femenino Anciano de 80 o más Años Cuidados Posteriores Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital Alta del Paciente Adulto Enfermedad Aguda Masculino |
| Sumario: | To determine the impact of risk stratification using the MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with acute heart failure) scale to guide disposition decision-making on the outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and assess the adherence of emergency physicians to risk stratification recommendations. This was a prospective quasi-experimental study (before/after design) conducted in eight Spanish EDs which consecutively enrolled adult patients with AHF. In the pre-implementation stage, the admit/discharge decision was performed entirely based on emergency physician judgement. During the post-implementation phase, emergency physicians were advised to 'discharge' patients classified by the MEESSI-AHF scale as low risk and 'admit' patients classified as increased risk. Nonetheless, the final decision was left to treating emergency physicians. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were days alive and out of hospital, in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit, hospitalisation or death). The pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts included 1589 and 1575 patients, respectively (median age 85 years, 56% females) with similar characteristics, and 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.4% and 9.7%, respectively (post-implementation HR=1.03, 95% CI=0.82 to 1.29). There were no differences in secondary outcomes or in the percentage of patients entirely managed in the ED without hospitalisation (direct discharge from the ED, 23.5% vs 24.4%, OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.89 to 1.24). Adjusted models did not change these results. Emergency physicians followed the MEESSI-AHF-based recommendation on patient disposition in 70.9% of cases (recommendation over-ruling: 29.1%). Physicians were more likely to over-rule the recommendation when 'discharge' was recommended (56.4%; main reason: need for hospitalisation for a second diagnosis) than when 'admit' was recommended (12.8%; main reason: no appreciation of severity of AHF decompensation by emergency physician), with an OR for over-ruling the 'discharge' compared with the 'admit' recommendation of 8.78 (95% CI=6.84 to 11.3). Implementing the MEESSI-AHF risk stratification tool in the ED to guide disposition decision-making did not improve patient outcomes. |
|---|