Dataset Information

Improving time to palliative care review with predictive modeling in an inpatient adult population: study protocol for a stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Palliative care is a medical specialty centered on improving the quality of life (QOL) of patients with complex or life-threatening illnesses. The need for palliative care is increasing and with that the rigorous testing of triage tools that can be used quickly and reliably to identify patients that may benefit from palliative care.

Methods

To that aim, we will conduct a two-armed stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial rolled out to two inpatient hospitals to evaluate whether a machine learning algorithm accurately identifies patients who may benefit from a comprehensive review by a palliative care specialist and decreases time to receiving a palliative care consult in hospital. This is a single-center study which will be conducted from August 2019 to November 2020 at Saint Mary's Hospital & Methodist Hospital both within Mayo Clinic Rochester in Minnesota. Clusters will be nursing units which will be chosen to be a mix of complex patients from Cardiology, Critical Care, and Oncology and had previously established relationships with palliative medicine. The stepped wedge design will have 12 units allocated to a design matrix of 5 treatment wedges. Each wedge will last 75 days resulting in a study period of 12 months of recruitment unless otherwise specified. Data will be analyzed with Bayesian hierarchical models with credible intervals denoting statistical significance.

Discussion

This intervention offers a pragmatic approach to delivering specialty palliative care to hospital patients in need using machine learning, thereby leading to high value care and improved outcomes. It is not enough for AI to be utilized by simply publishing research showing predictive performance; clinical trials demonstrating better outcomes are critically needed. Furthermore, the deployment of an AI algorithm is a complex process that requires multiple teams with varying skill sets. To evaluate a deployed AI, a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate the difficulties of clinical practice while retaining scientific rigor.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03976297 . Registered on 6 June 2019, prior to trial start.

SUBMITTER: Wilson PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444160 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial comparing usual care to a new intervention, treatment allocation and time are correlated by design because participants enrolled early in the trial predominantly receive usual care while those enrolled late in the trial predominantly receive the new intervention. Current guidelines recommend adjustment for time effects when analyzing stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials to remove the confounding bias induced by this correlation. However, adjustment for time effects impacts study power. Within the Frequentist framework, adopting a sample size calculation that includes time effects would ensure the trial having adequate power regardless of the magnitude of the effect of time on the outcome. But if in fact time effects were negligible, this would overestimate the required sample size and could lead to the trial being deemed infeasible due to cost or unavailability of the required numbers of clusters or participants. In this study, we explore the use of prior information on time effects to potentially reduce the required sample size of the trial.MethodsWe applied a Bayesian approach to incorporate the prior information on the time effects into cluster-level statistical models (for continuous, binary, or count outcomes) for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. We conducted simulations to illustrate how the bias in the intervention effect estimate and the trial power vary as a function of the prior precision and the mis-specification of the prior means of the time effects in an example scenario.ResultsWhen a nearly flat prior for the time effects was used, the power or sample size calculated using the Bayesian approach matched the result obtained using the Frequentist approach with time effects included. When a highly precise prior for the time effects (with accurately specified prior means) was used, the Bayesian result matched the Frequentist result obtained with time effects excluded. When the prior means of the time effects were nearly correctly specified, including this information improved the efficiency of the trial with little bias introduced into the intervention effect estimate. When the prior means of the time effects were greatly mis-specified and a precise prior was used, this bias was substantial.ConclusionIncluding prior information on time effects using a Bayesian approach may substantially reduce the required sample size. When the prior can be justified, results from applying this approach could support the conduct of a trial, which would be deemed infeasible if based on the larger sample size obtained using a Frequentist calculation. Caution is warranted as biased intervention effect estimates may arise when the prior distribution for the time effects is concentrated far from their true values.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the overwhelming prevalence and health implications of obesity, it is rarely adequately addressed in a health care setting. PATHWEIGH is a pragmatic approach to weight management that uses tools built into the electronic medical record to overcome barriers and guide care. Implementation strategies are employed to facilitate adoption and use of the PATHWEIGH tools and processes. The current study will compare the effectiveness of PATHWEIGH versus standard of care (SOC) on patient weight loss in primary care and explore factors for its successful implementation.MethodsA stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design will be used within an effectiveness-implementation hybrid study. Adult patient weight loss and weight loss maintenance will be compared in PATHWEIGH versus SOC in 57 family and internal medicine clinics in a large health system in Colorado, USA. Effectiveness will be evaluated using generalized linear mixed models to determine statistical differences in weight loss and weight loss maintenance at 6, 12, and 18 months. Patient-, provider-, and clinic-level predictors will be identified using mediator and moderator analyses. Conceptually guided by the Practical, Robust, Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), a mixed methods approach including quantitative (practice surveys, use tracking) and qualitative (interviews, observations) data collection will be used to determine factors impeding and facilitating adoption, implementation, and maintenance of PATHWEIGH and evaluate specified implementation strategies. A cost analysis of the practice and system costs and resources required by PATHWEIGH relative to the reimbursement collected will be performed.DiscussionThe effectiveness and implementation of PATHWEIGH, and their interrelatedness, for patient weight loss are collectively the focus of the current trial. Findings from this study are expected to serve as a blueprint for available and effective weight management in primary care medical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04678752 . Registered on December 21, 2020.

Project description:IntroductionEmergency departments (ED) care for society's most vulnerable older adults who present with exacerbations of chronic disease at the end of life, yet the clinical paradigm focuses on treatment of acute pathologies. Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aims to implement and evaluate Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) on ED disposition, healthcare utilisation and survival in older adults with serious illness.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial to test the effectiveness of PRIM-ER in 35 EDs across the USA. The intervention includes four core components: (1) evidence-based, multidisciplinary primary palliative care education; (2) simulation-based workshops; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback. The study is divided into two phases: a pilot phase, to ensure feasibility in two sites, and an implementation and evaluation phase, where we implement the intervention and test the effectiveness in 33 EDs over 2 years. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we will assess the primary outcomes in approximately 300 000 patients: ED disposition to an acute care setting, healthcare utilisation in the 6 months following the ED visit and survival following the index ED visit. Analysis will also determine the site, provider and patient-level characteristics that are associated with variation in impact of PRIM-ER.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at New York University School of Medicine to evaluate the CMS data. Oversight will also be provided by the National Institutes of Health, an Independent Monitoring Committee and a Clinical Informatics Advisory Board. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03424109; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundClostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) is a persistent healthcare issue. In the US, CDI is the most common infectious cause of hospital-onset (HO) diarrhea.ObjectiveAssess the impact of admission testing for toxigenic C. difficile colonization on the incidence of HO-CDI.DesignPragmatic stepped-wedge Infection Control initiative.SettingNorthShore University HealthSystem is a four-hospital system near Chicago, IL.PatientsAll patients admitted to the four hospitals during the initiative.InterventionsFrom September 2017 through August 2018 we conducted a quality improvement program where admitted patients had a peri-rectal swab tested for toxigenic C. difficile. All colonized patients were placed into contact precautions.MeasurementsWe tested admissions who: i) had been hospitalized within two months, ii) had a past C. difficile positive test, and/or iii) were in a long-term care facility within six months. We measured compliance with all other practices to reduce the incidence of HO-CDI.Results30% of admissions were tested and 8.3% were positive. In the year prior to the initiative (Period 1) there were 63,057 admitted patients when HO-CDI incidence was 5.96 cases/10,000 patient days. During the 12-month initiative (Period 2) there were 62,760 admissions and the HO-CDI incidence was 4.23 cases/10,000 patient days (p = 0.02). There were no other practice or antibiotic use changes. Continuing admission surveillance provided a HO-CDI incidence of 2.9 cases/10,000 patient days during the final 9 months of 2018 (p<0.0001 compared to Period 1), equaling <1 case/1,000 admissions.LimitationsThis was not a randomized controlled trial, and multiple prevention practices were in place at the time of the admission surveillance initiative.ConclusionAdmission C. difficile surveillance testing is an important tool for preventing hospital-onset C. difficile infection.RegistrationThis quality improvement initiative is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The unique registration identifier number is NCT04014608.

Project description:BackgroundThe study was conducted to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of enhanced multi-disciplinary teams (EMDTs) vs. 'usual care' for the treatment of pressure ulcers in long term care (LTC) facilities in Ontario, CanadaMethodsWe conducted a multi-method study: a pragmatic cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial, ethnographic observation and in-depth interviews, and an economic evaluation. Long term care facilities (clusters) were randomly allocated to start dates of the intervention. An advance practice nurse (APN) with expertise in skin and wound care visited intervention facilities to educate staff on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, supported by an off-site hospital based expert multi-disciplinary wound care team via email, telephone, or video link as needed. The primary outcome was rate of reduction in pressure ulcer surface area (cm2/day) measured on before and after standard photographs by an assessor blinded to facility allocation. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, probability of healing, pressure ulcer incidence, pressure ulcer prevalence, wound pain, hospitalization, emergency department visits, utility, and cost.Results12 of 15 eligible LTC facilities were randomly selected to participate and randomized to start date of the intervention following the stepped wedge design. 137 residents with a total of 259 pressure ulcers (stage 2 or greater) were recruited over the 17 month study period. No statistically significant differences were found between control and intervention periods on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation demonstrated a mean reduction in direct care costs of $650 per resident compared to 'usual care'. The qualitative study suggested that onsite support by APN wound specialists was welcomed, and is responsible for reduced costs through discontinuation of expensive non evidence based treatments. Insufficient allocation of nursing home staff time to wound care may explain the lack of impact on healing.ConclusionEnhanced multi-disciplinary wound care teams were cost effective, with most benefit through cost reduction initiated by APNs, but did not improve the treatment of pressure ulcers in nursing homes. Policy makers should consider the potential yield of strengthening evidence based primary care within LTC facilities, through outreach by APNs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01232764.