Dataset Information

Managing COVID-19 With a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Community Health Network: Algorithm Development and Validation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality; large numbers of patients require intensive care, which is placing strain on health care systems worldwide. There is an urgent need for a COVID-19 disease severity assessment that can assist in patient triage and resource allocation for patients at risk for severe disease. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to develop, validate, and scale a clinical decision support system and mobile app to assist in COVID-19 severity assessment, management, and care. METHODS:Model training data from 701 patients with COVID-19 were collected across practices within the Family Health Centers network at New York University Langone Health. A two-tiered model was developed. Tier 1 uses easily available, nonlaboratory data to help determine whether biomarker-based testing and/or hospitalization is necessary. Tier 2 predicts the probability of mortality using biomarker measurements (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, D-dimer) and age. Both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 models were validated using two external datasets from hospitals in Wuhan, China, comprising 160 and 375 patients, respectively. RESULTS:All biomarkers were measured at significantly higher levels in patients who died vs those who were not hospitalized or discharged (P<.001). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 internal validations had areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.84) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.98), respectively. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 external validations had AUCs of 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.84) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our results demonstrate the validity of the clinical decision support system and mobile app, which are now ready to assist health care providers in making evidence-based decisions when managing COVID-19 patient care. The deployment of these new capabilities has potential for immediate impact in community clinics and sites, where application of these tools could lead to improvements in patient outcomes and cost containment.

SUBMITTER: McRae MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7446714 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Managing COVID-19 With a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Community Health Network: Algorithm Development and Validation.

McRae Michael P MP Dapkins Isaac P IP Sharif Iman I Anderman Judd J Fenyo David D Sinokrot Odai O Kang Stella K SK Christodoulides Nicolaos J NJ Vurmaz Deniz D Simmons Glennon W GW Alcorn Timothy M TM Daoura Marco J MJ Gisburne Stu S Zar David D McDevitt John T JT

Journal of medical Internet research 20200824 8

<h4>Background</h4>The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality; large numbers of patients require intensive care, which is placing strain on health care systems worldwide. There is an urgent need for a COVID-19 disease severity assessment that can assist in patient triage and resource allocation for patients at risk for severe disease.<h4>Objective</h4>The goal of this study was to develop, validate, and scale a clinical decision support system ...[more]

PMID: 32750010

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied.ObjectiveConduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system.DesignComparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018).ParticipantsMen, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider.InterventionsThe algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results.Main measuresPrimary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates.Key resultsDuring the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05).ConclusionsIn this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying and managing serious spinal pathology (SSP) such as cauda equina syndrome or spinal infection in patients presenting with low back pain is challenging. Traditional red flag questioning is increasingly criticized, and previous studies show that many clinicians lack confidence in managing patients presenting with red flags. Improving decision-making and reducing the variability of care for these patients is a key priority for clinicians and researchers.ObjectiveWe aimed to improve SSP identification by constructing and validating a decision support tool using a Bayesian network (BN), which is an artificial intelligence technique that combines current evidence and expert knowledge.MethodsA modified RAND appropriateness procedure was undertaken with 16 experts over 3 rounds, designed to elicit the variables, structure, and conditional probabilities necessary to build a causal BN. The BN predicts the likelihood of a patient with a particular presentation having an SSP. The second part of this study used an established framework to direct a 4-part validation that included comparison of the BN with consensus statements, practice guidelines, and recent research. Clinical cases were entered into the model and the results were compared with clinical judgment from spinal experts who were not involved in the elicitation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curve were calculated for accuracy statistics.ResultsThe RAND appropriateness procedure elicited a model including 38 variables in 3 domains: risk factors (10 variables), signs and symptoms (17 variables), and judgment factors (11 variables). Clear consensus was found in the risk factors and signs and symptoms for SSP conditions. The 4-part BN validation demonstrated good performance overall and identified areas for further development. Comparison with available clinical literature showed good overall agreement but suggested certain improvements required to, for example, 2 of the 11 judgment factors. Case analysis showed that cauda equina syndrome, space-occupying lesion/cancer, and inflammatory condition identification performed well across the validation domains. Fracture identification performed less well, but the reasons for the erroneous results are well understood. A review of the content by independent spinal experts backed up the issues with the fracture node, but the BN was otherwise deemed acceptable.ConclusionsThe RAND appropriateness procedure and validation framework were successfully implemented to develop the BN for SSP. In comparison with other expert-elicited BN studies, this work goes a step further in validating the output before attempting implementation. Using a framework for model validation, the BN showed encouraging validity and has provided avenues for further developing the outputs that demonstrated poor accuracy. This study provides the vital first step of improving our ability to predict outcomes in low back pain by first considering the problem of SSP.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/21804.

Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19) which has reached pandemic levels resulting in significant morbidity and mortality affecting every inhabited continent. The large number of patients requiring intensive care threatens to overwhelm healthcare systems globally. Likewise, there is a compelling need for a COVID-19 disease severity test to prioritize care and resources for patients at elevated risk of mortality. Here, an integrated point-of-care COVID-19 Severity Score and clinical decision support system is presented using biomarker measurements of C-reactive protein (CRP), N-terminus pro B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), myoglobin (MYO), D-dimer, procalcitonin (PCT), creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB), and cardiac troponin I (cTnI). The COVID-19 Severity Score combines multiplex biomarker measurements and risk factors in a statistical learning algorithm to predict mortality. The COVID-19 Severity Score was trained and evaluated using data from 160 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from Wuhan, China. Our analysis finds that COVID-19 Severity Scores were significantly higher for the group that died versus the group that was discharged with median (interquartile range) scores of 59 (40-83) and 9 (6-17), respectively, and area under the curve of 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.99). Although this analysis represents patients with cardiac comorbidities (hypertension), the inclusion of biomarkers from other pathophysiologies implicated in COVID-19 (e.g., D-dimer for thrombotic events, CRP for infection or inflammation, and PCT for bacterial co-infection and sepsis) may improve future predictions for a more general population. These promising initial models pave the way for a point-of-care COVID-19 Severity Score system to impact patient care after further validation with externally collected clinical data. Clinical decision support tools for COVID-19 have strong potential to empower healthcare providers to save lives by prioritizing critical care in patients at high risk for adverse outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.MethodsA pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician.ResultsKnowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions.ConclusionsLungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

Project description:Appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) remains a national challenge. The recent availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with comparable efficacy and improved safety compared with warfarin alters the balance between risk factors for stroke and benefit of anticoagulation. Our objective was to examine the impact of DOACs as an alternative to warfarin on the net benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in a real-world population of AF patients.This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with paroxysmal or persistent nonvalvular AF. We updated an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool (AFDST) to include DOACs as treatment options. The tool generates patient-specific recommendations based upon individual patient risk factor profiles for stroke and major bleeding using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated for each treatment strategy by a decision analytic model. The setting included inpatient and ambulatory sites in an academic health center in the midwestern United States. The study involved 5,121 adults with nonvalvular AF seen for any ambulatory visit or inpatient hospitalization over the 1-year period (January through December 2016). Outcome measure was net clinical benefit in QALYs.When DOACs are a therapeutic option, the AFDST recommends OAT for 4,134 (81%) patients and no antithrombotic therapy or aspirin for 489 (9%). A strong recommendation for OAT could not be made in 498 (10%) patients. When warfarin is the only option, OAT is recommended for 3,228 (63%) patients and no antithrombotic therapy or aspirin for 973 (19%). A strong recommendation for OAT could not be made in 920 (18%) patients. In total, 1,508 QALYs could be gained if treatment were changed to that recommended by the AFDST.Availability of DOACs increases the proportion of patients for whom oral anticoagulation therapy is recommended in a real-world cohort of AF patients and increased projected QALYs by more than 1,500 when all patients are receiving thromboprophylaxis as recommended by the AFDST compared with current treatment.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) systems are becoming increasingly complicated, leading to concerns about rising physician burnout, particularly for primary care physicians (PCPs). Managing the most common cardiometabolic chronic conditions by PCPs during a limited clinical time with a patient is challenging.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate a Cardiometabolic Sutter Health Advanced Reengineered Encounter (CM-SHARE), a web-based application to visualize key EHR data, on the EHR use efficiency.MethodsWe developed algorithms to identify key clinic workflow measures (eg, total encounter time, total physician time in the examination room, and physician EHR time in the examination room) using audit data, and we validated and calibrated the measures with time-motion data. We used a pre-post parallel design to identify propensity score-matched CM-SHARE users (cases), nonusers (controls), and nested-matched patients. Cardiometabolic encounters from matched case and control patients were used for the workflow evaluation. Outcome measures were compared between the cases and controls. We applied this approach separately to both the CM-SHARE pilot and spread phases.ResultsTime-motion observation was conducted on 101 primary care encounters for 9 PCPs in 3 clinics. There was little difference (<0.8 minutes) between the audit data-derived workflow measures and the time-motion observation. Two key unobservable times from audit data, physician entry into and exiting the examination room, were imputed based on time-motion studies. CM-SHARE was launched with 6 pilot PCPs in April 2016. During the prestudy period (April 1, 2015, to April 1, 2016), 870 control patients with 2845 encounters were matched with 870 case patients and encounters, and 727 case patients with 852 encounters were matched with 727 control patients and 3754 encounters in the poststudy period (June 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017). Total encounter time was slightly shorter (mean -2.7, SD 1.4 minutes, 95% CI -4.7 to -0.9; mean -1.6, SD 1.1 minutes, 95% CI -3.2 to -0.1) for cases than controls for both periods. CM-SHARE saves physicians approximately 2 minutes EHR time in the examination room (mean -2.0, SD 1.3, 95% CI -3.4 to -0.9) compared with prestudy period and poststudy period controls (mean -1.9, SD 0.9, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.5). In the spread phase, 48 CM-SHARE spread PCPs were matched with 84 control PCPs and 1272 cases with 3412 control patients, having 1119 and 4240 encounters, respectively. A significant reduction in total encounter time for the CM-SHARE group was observed for short appointments (≤20 minutes; 5.3-minute reduction on average) only. Total physician EHR time was significantly reduced for both longer and shorter appointments (17%-33% reductions).ConclusionsCombining EHR audit log files and clinical information, our approach offers an innovative and scalable method and new measures that can be used to evaluate clinical EHR efficiency of digital tools used in clinical settings.

Dataset Information

Managing COVID-19 With a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Community Health Network: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Publications

Managing COVID-19 With a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Community Health Network: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets