Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Apr 3;6(4):e238795. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8795.
Goal-concordant care is an ongoing challenge in hospital settings. Identification of high mortality risk within 30 days may call attention to the need to have serious illness conversations, including the documentation of patient goals of care.
To examine goals of care discussions (GOCDs) in a community hospital setting with patients identified as having a high risk of mortality by a machine learning mortality prediction algorithm.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study took place at community hospitals within 1 health care system. Participants included adult patients with a high risk of 30-day mortality who were admitted to 1 of 4 hospitals between January 2 and July 15, 2021. Patient encounters of inpatients in the intervention hospital where physicians were notified of the computed high risk mortality score were compared with patient encounters of inpatients in 3 community hospitals without the intervention (ie, matched control).
Physicians of patients with a high risk of mortality within 30 days received notification and were encouraged to arrange for GOCDs.
The primary outcome was the percentage change of documented GOCDs prior to discharge. Propensity-score matching was completed on a preintervention and postintervention period using age, sex, race, COVID-19 status, and machine learning-predicted mortality risk scores. A difference-in-difference analysis validated the results.
Overall, 537 patients were included in this study with 201 in the preintervention period (94 in the intervention group; 104 in the control group) and 336 patients in the postintervention period. The intervention and control groups included 168 patients per group and were well-balanced in age (mean [SD], 79.3 [9.60] vs 79.6 [9.21] years; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.03), sex (female, 85 [51%] vs 85 [51%]; SMD, 0), race (White patients, 145 [86%] vs 144 [86%]; SMD 0.006), and Charlson comorbidities (median [range], 8.00 [2.00-15.0] vs 9.00 [2.00 to 19.0]; SMD, 0.34). Patients in the intervention group from preintervention to postintervention period were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs (OR, 5.11 [95% CI, 1.93 to 13.42]; P = .001) by discharge compared with matched controls, and GOCD occurred significantly earlier in the hospitalization in the intervention patients as compared with matched controls (median, 4 [95% CI, 3 to 6] days vs 16 [95% CI, 15 to not applicable] days; P < .001). Similar findings were observed for Black patient and White patient subgroups.
In this cohort study, patients whose physicians had knowledge of high-risk predictions from machine learning mortality algorithms were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs than matched controls. Additional external validation is needed to determine if similar interventions would be helpful at other institutions.
在医院环境中,目标一致的护理是一个持续存在的挑战。在 30 天内识别出高死亡率风险可能会引起人们关注,需要进行严重疾病的对话,包括记录患者的护理目标。
在机器学习死亡率预测算法确定患者具有高死亡率风险的社区医院环境中,检查护理目标讨论(GOCD)。
设计、地点和参与者:本队列研究在一个医疗保健系统内的社区医院进行。参与者包括在 2021 年 1 月 2 日至 7 月 15 日期间入住 4 家医院之一的高 30 天死亡率风险的成年患者。干预医院的住院患者的就诊记录中,医生会收到计算出的高风险死亡率评分的通知,并与没有干预措施的 3 家社区医院(即匹配对照组)的住院患者的就诊记录进行比较。
具有高 30 天死亡率风险的患者的医生会收到通知,并被鼓励安排 GOCD。
主要结局是出院前记录 GOCD 的百分比变化。使用年龄、性别、种族、COVID-19 状态和机器学习预测的死亡率风险评分,在干预前和干预后时期完成倾向评分匹配。差异分析验证了结果。
这项研究共纳入了 537 名患者,其中 201 名患者在干预前(94 名在干预组,104 名在对照组),336 名患者在干预后。干预组和对照组每组有 168 名患者,年龄(平均[标准差],79.3[9.60]岁 vs 79.6[9.21]岁;标准化均差[SMD],0.03)、性别(女性,85[51%] vs 85[51%];SMD,0)、种族(白种人患者,145[86%] vs 144[86%];SMD,0.006)和 Charlson 合并症(中位数[范围],8.00[2.00-15.0] vs 9.00[2.00 至 19.0];SMD,0.34)均均衡。与匹配对照组相比,从干预前到干预后,干预组的患者在出院前有记录的 GOCD 的可能性高 5 倍(比值比,5.11[95%置信区间,1.93 至 13.42];P=0.001),并且与匹配对照组相比,GOCD 发生得更早(中位数,4[95%置信区间,3 至 6]天 vs 16[95%置信区间,15 至无]天;P<0.001)。在黑人和白人患者亚组中也观察到了类似的发现。
在这项队列研究中,其医生了解机器学习死亡率算法的高风险预测的患者,与匹配对照组相比,有记录的 GOCD 发生的可能性高 5 倍。需要进行额外的外部验证,以确定在其他机构是否可以实施类似的干预措施。