SciCombinator

In Belgium, Advance Care Planning (ACP) is not well implemented in hospital practice. One of the premises for successful implementation is involving the adopters in the implementation process. In hospital, important adopters of ACP are physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists. First, this study wants to understand what the characteristics are of ACP in hospital, according to professionals. Second, this study aims to give an insight in the experienced value of ACP. Third, the experienced barriers to have ACP conversations are explored. Twenty-four interviews were taken and analyzed with Content Analysis based on Grounded Theory. Three independent external auditors surveilled the analysis. ACP in hospital exists by the grace of the initiative of the actors involved in the case. Professionals perceive fields of tension between one another; barriers to ACP communication. ACP is mainly considered valuable because it is a process that creates time for exploration and reflection.

The GRACE risk score was developed to predict in-hospital mortality for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using multinational registries, but did not include Japanese data. Therefore, GRACE risk scores are not extensively used in Japan. The present study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the GRACE risk score and in-hospital mortality among Japanese patients with ACS using the Tokyo CCU (cardiovascular care unit) Network Database.

To use the GRACE and CRUSADE scores to risk stratify anti-platelet treatment post Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS).

Currently available risk scores (RSs) were derived from populations with very few participants from China. We aimed to develop an RS based on data from patients with acute coronary syndrome in China and to compare its performance with the commonly promoted Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) RS. Clinical Pathways for Acute Coronary Syndromes-Phase 2 was a trial of a quality improvement intervention in China. Patients recruited from 75 hospitals from October 2007 to August 2010 were divided into training and validation sets based on immediate or delayed implementation. A Clinical Pathways for Acute Coronary Syndromes (CPACS) RS for in-hospital mortality was developed separately by gender, using the training set (6,790 patients). Discrimination and calibration of the CPACS RS and GRACE RS were compared on the validation set (3,801 patients). Although discrimination of the GRACE RS was acceptable, this was improved with the CPACS RS (c-statistic 0.82 vs 0.87, p = 0.012 for men; c-statistic 0.78 vs 0.85, p = 0.006 for women). The absolute bias was significantly lower with CPACS RS for both genders (7.6% vs 97.5% in men and 21.5% vs 77.2% in women), compared with the GRACE RS, which systematically overestimated risk. The CPACS RS underestimated risk in women, but only in those already above threshold levels currently used to define a clinical high-risk population. In conclusion, the GRACE RS substantially overestimates the risk of in-hospital death in patients presenting to the hospital with a suspected acute coronary syndrome in China. We have developed and independently validated a new RS utilizing data from Chinese patients.

‘Separated by several time zones are nurses with the passion to care, the desire to heal, the drive to improve and, in many cases, the grace to help patients grieve’.

In a randomized clinical trial, Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), a model of care that works in collaboration with primary care providers (PCPs) and patient-centered medical homes to provide home-based geriatric care management focusing on geriatric syndromes and psychosocial problems commonly found in older adults, improved care quality and reduced acute care use for high-risk, low-income older adults. To assess the effect of GRACE at a Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC), veterans aged 65 and older from Marion County, Indiana, with PCPs from four of five VAMC clinics who were not on hospice or dialysis were enrolled in GRACE after discharge home from an acute hospitalization. After an initial home-based transition visit to GRACE enrollees, the GRACE team returned to conduct a geriatric assessment. Guided by 12 protocols and input from an interdisciplinary panel and the PCP, the GRACE team developed and implemented a veteran-centric care plan. Hospitalized veterans from the fifth clinic, who otherwise met enrollment criteria, served as a usual-care comparison group. Demographic, comorbidity, and usage data were drawn from VA databases. The GRACE and comparison groups were similar in age, sex, and burden of comorbidity, although predicted risk of 1-year mortality in GRACE veterans was higher. Even so, GRACE enrollment was associated with 7.1% fewer emergency department visits, 14.8% fewer 30-day readmissions, 37.9% fewer hospital admissions, and 28.5% fewer total bed days of care, saving the VAMC an estimated $200,000 per year after program costs during the study for the 179 veterans enrolled in GRACE. Having engaged, enthusiastic VA leadership and GRACE staff; aligning closely with the medical home; and accommodating patient acuity were among the important lessons learned during implementation.

We assessed the interest of systematically using the GRACE scoring system (in addition to clinical assessment) for in- hospital outcomes and bleeding complications in the management of NSTEMI compared with clinical assessments alone. Multicentre, randomized study that included 572 consecutive NSTEMI patients, randomized 1:1, into group A: clinical stratification alone and group B: clinical+ GRACE score stratification.

Given the increasing focus on early mortality and readmission rates among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), this study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the GRACE risk score for identifying patients at high risk of 30-day post-discharge mortality and cardiovascular readmission.

Assessment of ischemic and bleeding risk is critical for the management of elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes, but it has been little studied.

Risk stratification after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event is recommended to guide intensity and timing of investigation and management. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) investigators have published several scores for predicting patient risk both at hospital admission and discharge.