4.6 Article

Moderate efficiency of clinicians' predictions decreased for blurred clinical conditions and benefits from the use of BRASS index. A longitudinal study on geriatric patients' outcomes

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages 51-60

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.017

Keywords

Prognosis; Geriatric patient; Hospitalization; Clinician; Predictive models; Treatment outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Accurate prognosis is an essential aspect of good clinical practice and efficient health services, particularly for chronic and disabling diseases, as in geriatric populations. This study aims to examine the accuracy of clinical prognostic predictions and to devise prediction models combining clinical variables and clinicians' prognosis for a geriatric patient sample. Study Design and Setting: In a sample of 329 consecutive older patients admitted to 10 geriatric units, we evaluated the accuracy of clinicians' prognosis regarding three outcomes at discharge: global functioning, length of stay (LoS) in hospital, and destination at discharge (DD). A comprehensive set of sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment-related information were also collected. Results: Moderate predictive performance was found for all three outcomes: area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 and 0.78 for functioning and LoS, respectively, and moderate concordance, Cohen's K = 0.45, between predicted and observed DD. Predictive models found the Blaylock Risk Assessment Screening Score together with clinicians' judgment relevant to improve predictions for all outcomes (absolute improvement in adjusted and pseudo-R-2 up to 19%). Conclusion: Although the clinicians' estimates were important factors in predicting global functioning, LoS, and DD, more research is needed regarding both methodological aspects and clinical measurements, to improve prognostic clinical indices. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available