1 / 18

Consensus-based priority setting for elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity

Consensus-based priority setting for elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity. Niklas Ekerstad , MD Rurik Löfmark , MD Per Carlsson , Professor National Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care, Sweden. Background - Demography.

quade
Télécharger la présentation

Consensus-based priority setting for elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Consensus-based priority setting for elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity NiklasEkerstad, MD Rurik Löfmark, MD Per Carlsson, Professor National Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care, Sweden

  2. Background - Demography Statistics Sweden. Population projection for Sweden 2004-2050

  3. Background – Key components regarding medical priority setting in Sweden • The ethical platform (parliamentary decision) • The Swedish national model for priority setting • Evidence-based guidelines for priority setting

  4. Background - Problems regarding evidence-based priority setting for elderly patients with multi-morbidity • Lack of a relevant description of needs (severity;potential effect of treatment) in terms of subgrouping (heterogenous population). • Lack of evidence/limited applicability of evidence ”Our base of scientific expertise is weakest for the age groups (75+) that most often receive various types of treatments.” (The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care)

  5. Background – a critical case Setting priorities within health care when the evidence base is weak - A critical case: Decision-making for frail elderly with acute cardiovascular disease and co-morbid conditions

  6. Background – Cardiologists´attitudes to suggested ways of improving clinical priority setting for elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity Ekerstad, N., Löfmark, R., Carlsson, P. Elderly with Multimorbidity and Acute Cardiac Disease: Doctors´ Views on Decision-Making. Accepted 091015. Scand J Public Health

  7. Background – Description of the needs of NSTEMI patients in the national guidelines AAA A B National guidelines regarding the measure coronary angiography for NSTEMI patients: Two categories based on disease-specific risk (cardiovascular risk) A - high or medium cardiovascular risk: rank 2 B - low cardiovascular risk: rank 6

  8. Background – Proposed description of the needs of elderly patients with multi-morbidity

  9. Background – Proposed categorization of the needs of elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity High CVR Low CVR CM+ CM- CM+ CM- CFS+ CFS- CFS+ CFS- CFS+ CFS- CFS+ CFS- I II III IV V VI VII VIII CVR = Cardiovascular risk CM = Co-morbidity CFS = Clinical Frailty Scale

  10. Background – Tentative relative ranking of the categories regarding coronary angiography from a theoretical standpoint High cardiovascular risk Low cardiovascular risk VIII Medium-high rank VII Low rank VI Low rank V Very low rank IV High rank III Low-medium rank II Low-medium rank I Low rank

  11. Background – a pilot study regarding experts´priority setting for elderly NSTEMI patients with multi-morbidity • 6 experts validated 15 authentic NSTEMI cases, each case belonging to one of the eight model categories, and the model´s components • For each case the measure coronary angiography was individually ranked; the convergence between the experts´rankings was evidently good.

  12. Objectives • To re-validate the clinical cases and the model´s components regarding their relevance • To evaluate the interrater reliability concerning the experts´rankings regarding each category • To compare the rankings of the experts and the guidelines • To compare the rankings of the experts with the model´s suggested relative rankings

  13. Methods • Selection process of experts • A questionnaire study • Intra class correlation test

  14. Results of the interimistic analysis (n=28) – Validation of the selected cases “Very realistic cases! Daily problems!” (A male cardiologist at a small hospital) “A few of the cases are typically found in non-cardiac care departments. “(A male cardiologist at a university hospital)

  15. Results of the interimistic analysis – Convergence among the experts´rankings Intra-class correlation test, two-way random, absolute: Single: 0,530 (0,359 – 0,751) Average: 0,964 (0,931 – 0,986) The inter-rater reliability was good. The experts´rankings converge well.

  16. Results of the interimistic analysis – Comparisons between different sources of rankings: guidelines and experts High cardiovascular risk Low cardiovascular risk

  17. Results of the interimistic analysis (n=28) – Estimated relevance of the model´s components

  18. Conclusions • Evidence-based guidelines should be adapted to be applicable for elderly patients with multi-morbidity. • Consensus-based experts´ priority setting for elderly patients with multi-morbidity could be one way to achieve this. • The tentative model contains three components: disease-specific risk, comorbidity and frailty • The interimistic analysis indicates that the model´s components are considered relevant and that the inter-rater reliability of the experts´ rankings is good.

More Related