Early Prevention of Critical Illness in Older Adults: Adaptation and Pilot Testing of an Electronic Risk Score and Checklist

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.

Clinical Case of Acute Non-Traumatic Hand Compartment Syndrome and Systematic Review for the Upper Extremity

Background: While trauma to the upper extremity is known to cause acute compartment syndrome (ACS), nontraumatic causes of ACS of the upper extremity are rare. Nontraumatic ACS of the upper extremity can lead to adverse outcomes if not recognized early. There are limited reports of spontaneous ACS published in the literature. The aim of this comprehensive systematic review is to increase awareness among plastic surgeons and hand surgeons of this acute event and provide an algorithmic approach to management in the acute setting through an illustrative case example. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of published literature was conducted in the Medline/PubMed database with the search terms, "compartment syndrome," "extremity," "spontaneous," "nontraumatic," and "atraumatic" without timeframe limitations. Articles were identified and included in this review based on ACS localization in the upper extremity and etiology of nontraumatic, spontaneous origin. Results: Sixteen publications and 19 total cases of nontraumatic ACS of the upper extremity from 1993 to 2016 met our search criteria. A bleeding disorder was the etiology in three cases, systemic anticoagulation in three cases, infection in six cases, and unknown in three cases. The remaining four cases included systemic sclerosis, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, rhabdomyolysis, and McArdle disease. Conclusions: Nontraumatic causes of ACS of the upper extremity include infection, anticoagulation therapy, and bleeding disorders. Even though trauma is the most common cause of ACS, clinicians should be aware of these other potential causes of ACS in the nontraumatic setting. Appropriate medical and surgical intervention should be done to avoid potential adverse outcomes.

Alaska Native Patient and Provider Perspectives on the Multitarget Stool DNA Test Compared With Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Objective: Alaska Native (AN) people have among the world's highest rate of colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed perceptions of AN people and their health care providers of a new take-home multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA; Cologuard) relative to colonoscopy. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys of AN people aged 40 to 75 years (mailed) and providers (online). Results: Participants included 1616 AN patients (19% response rate) and 87 providers (26% response rate; 57% AN people). Over half (58%) of patients preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening, while 36% preferred MT-sDNA. Unscreened patients were significantly more likely to state a preference for MT-sDNA than previously screened patients (42% vs 31%, P < .05) as were younger patients (<60 years old) compared with older patients (40% vs 30%, P < .05). Most providers thought that MT-sDNA would improve screening rates (69%), would recommend if available (79%), and be implementable (79%). Perceived barriers differed substantially between patients and providers in both type and magnitude. Leading colonoscopy barriers reported by patients were travel (44%) and bowel preparation (40%), while providers thought that fear of pain (92%) and invasiveness of the test (87%) were the primary barriers. For MT-sDNA, patients' belief that colonoscopy was better (56%) and not knowing how to do the test (40%) were primary barriers, while providers thought stool collection (67%) and having a stool sample in their home (63%) were leading barriers. Conclusions: This study found that MT-sDNA has potential acceptability among AN people and their health care providers. Both groups reported a willingness to use MT-sDNA and did not perceive major barriers to its use. This preference was especially true of unscreened and younger patients. The majority of providers indicated they would use MT-sDNA if available and that it would improve CRC screening rates. In this population, where colonoscopy access is limited, MT-sDNA has the potential to improve CRC screening adherence.