scholarly journals Supplementing prediction by EuroSCORE with social and patient‐reported measures among patients undergoing cardiac surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pernille F. Cromhout ◽  
Lau C. Thygesen ◽  
Philip Moons ◽  
Samer Nashef ◽  
Sune Damgaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Reported Measures

scholarly journals Supplementing prediction by EuroSCORE with social and patient reported measures among patients undergoing cardiac surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pernille Cromhout ◽  
Lau Thygesen ◽  
Philip Moons ◽  
Samer Nashef ◽  
Sune Damgaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Reported Measures

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Cognitive Outcomes Following Cardiac Surgery: A Descriptive Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352198925
Author(s):  
Amanda Robinson ◽  
Edith Pituskin ◽  
Colleen M Norris
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cognitive Outcomes ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cognitive Changes ◽  
Practice Nurses ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality

A descriptive review was conducted to evaluate the evidence of cognitive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following cardiac surgery. The search of electronic databases resulted in 400 unique manuscripts. Nine studies met the criteria to be part of the final review. Results of the review suggest that there are few validated PROMs that assess cognitive function in the cardiac surgical population. Furthermore, PROMs have not been used to assess overall cognitive function following cardiac surgery within the past decade. However, one domain of cognitive function—memory—was described, with up to half of patients reporting a decline postoperatively. Perceived changes in cognitive function may impact health-related quality of life and a patient’s overall view of the success of their surgery. Early identification of cognitive changes measured with PROMs may encourage earlier intervention and improve patient-centered care. In clinical practice, nurses may be in the best position to administer PROMs preoperatively and postoperatively.

scholarly journals Cardiac surgery in the elderly: What goals of care?

2017 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Pratesi ◽  
Francesco Orso ◽  
Camilla Ghiara ◽  
Aldo Lo Forte ◽  
Anna Chiara Baroncini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Frailty Phenotype ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Geriatric Cardiology ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Short Term Mortality ◽  
Surgery In The Elderly

<p>At present, the majority of cardiac surgery interventions have been performed in the elderly with successful short-term mortality and morbidity, however significant difficulties must to be underlined about our capacity to predict long-term outcomes such as disability, worsening quality of life and loss of functional capacity.<br />The reason probably resides on inability to capture preoperative frailty phenotype with current cardiac surgery risk scores and consequently we are unable to outline the postoperative trajectory of an important patients’ centered outcome such as disability free survival. In this perspective, more than one geriatric statements have stressed the systematic underuse of patient reported outcomes in cardiovascular trials even after taking account of their relevance to older feel and wishes. Thus, in the next future is mandatory for geriatric cardiology community closes this gap of evidences through planning of trials in which patients’ centered outcomes are considered as primary goals of therapies as well as cardiovascular ones.</p>

Outcome assessment in cleft lip and palate surgery

2021 ◽  
pp. 761-766
Author(s):  
Marc C. Swan ◽  
Conrad J. Harrison ◽  
Tim E.E. Goodacre
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Assessment ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Outcome Evaluation ◽  
Future Trends ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Over Time

Outcome assessment for cleft management is complex due to the diverse elements of function affected by the condition, and the variation in effect on patients over time. Methods of assessment are broadly separated into objectively measurable variables that can be independently validated, and patient-reported measures that are necessarily more subjective. Validated tools to evaluate outcomes are now widely adopted for speech and facial growth, with other areas of outcome presenting greater problems in development of suitable measures. In recent years, the emphasis of outcome evaluation has turned towards greater reliance on patient-reported measures that require extensive preliminary research to develop if a high degree of validity is to be ensured. Existing outcome measures that are widely used are described in this chapter, along with a perspective for future trends and a forthcoming internationally applicable tool for comparative studies (ICHOM).

scholarly journals Protocol for project recovery after cardiac surgery: a single-center cohort study leveraging digital platform to characterise longitudinal patient-reported postoperative recovery patterns

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e036959
Author(s):  
Makoto Mori ◽  
Cornell Brooks ◽  
Erica Spatz ◽  
Bobak J Mortazavi ◽  
Sanket S Dhruva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Medical Record ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Aortic Surgery ◽  
Early Recovery ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Poor Recovery ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionImproving postoperative patient recovery after cardiac surgery is a priority, but our current understanding of individual variations in recovery and factors associated with poor recovery is limited. We are using a health-information exchange platform to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and wearable device data to phenotype recovery patterns in the 30-day period after cardiac surgery hospital discharge, to identify factors associated with these phenotypes and to investigate phenotype associations with clinical outcomes.Methods and analysisWe designed a prospective cohort study to enrol 200 patients undergoing valve, coronary artery bypass graft or aortic surgery at a tertiary centre in the USA. We are enrolling patients postoperatively after the intensive care unit discharge and delivering electronic surveys directly to patients every 3 days for 30 days after hospital discharge. We will conduct medical record reviews to collect patient demographics, comorbidity, operative details and hospital course using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data definitions. We will use phone interview and medical record review data for adjudication of survival, readmission and complications. We will apply group-based trajectory modelling to the time-series PROM and device data to classify patients into distinct categories of recovery trajectories. We will evaluate whether certain recovery pattern predicts death or hospital readmissions, as well as whether clinical factors predict a patient having poor recovery trajectories. We will evaluate whether early recovery patterns predict the overall trajectory at the patient-level.Ethics and disseminationThe Yale Institutional Review Board approved this study. Following the description of the study procedure, we obtain written informed consent from all study participants. The consent form states that all personal information, survey response and any medical records are confidential, will not be shared and are stored in an encrypted database. We plan to publish our study findings in peer-reviewed journals.

scholarly journals Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 673-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
Yuchiao Chang ◽  
Karen Sepucha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Herniated Disc ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Objective. If shared decision making (SDM) is to be part of quality assessment, it is necessary to have good measures of SDM. The purpose of this study is to compare the psychometric performance of 3 short patient-reported measures of SDM. Methods. Patients who met with a specialist to discuss possible surgery for hip or knee osteoarthritis (hips/knees), lumbar herniated disc, or lumbar spinal stenosis (backs) were surveyed shortly after the visit and again 6 months later. Some of the patients saw a patient decision aid (PDA) prior to the meeting. The 3 SDM measures were the SDM Process_4 (SDMP) survey, CollaboRATE, and SURE scale. The follow-up survey included measures of decision regret, satisfaction, and decision quality. Results. Patients in the sample ( N = 649) had a mean age of 63.3 years, 51% were female, 60% were college educated, and there were more hip/knee patients than back patients (69% v. 31%). Forty-nine percent had surgery. For hips/knees, the SDMP and SURE scores were significantly associated with viewing all of the PDA compared with those who did not ( P < 0.001), but not for CollaboRATE ( P = 0.35). For backs, none of the scores were significantly associated with viewing all the PDA. All 3 scores were significantly associated with less regret and higher satisfaction ( P < 0.001) for hips/knees. For backs, only SURE and CollaboRATE were significantly associated with less regret, and only SDMP was significantly associated with higher satisfaction. For hips/knees and backs, the SDMP and SURE scales were significantly associated with an informed patient-centered decision ( P < 0.001), but this relationship was not significant for CollaboRATE (hips/knees: P = 0.24; backs: P = 0.25). Discussion. Each measure has some evidence of validity. SURE and SDMP better discriminate the use of PDAs and have higher decision quality.

scholarly journals Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
James R. Dornhoffer ◽  
Ted A. Meyer ◽  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
Theodore R. McRackan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document