Dataset Information

Using predicted length of stay to define treatment and model costs in hospitalized adults with serious illness: an evaluation of palliative care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Economic research on hospital palliative care faces major challenges. Observational studies using routine data encounter difficulties because treatment timing is not under investigator control and unobserved patient complexity is endemic. An individual's predicted LOS at admission offers potential advantages in this context.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adults admitted to a large cancer center in the United States between 2009 and 2015. We defined a derivation sample to estimate predicted LOS using baseline factors (N = 16,425) and an analytic sample for our primary analyses (N = 2674) based on diagnosis of a terminal illness and high risk of hospital mortality. We modelled our treatment variable according to the timing of first palliative care interaction as a function of predicted LOS, and we employed predicted LOS as an additional covariate in regression as a proxy for complexity alongside diagnosis and comorbidity index. We evaluated models based on predictive accuracy in and out of sample, on Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria, and precision of treatment effect estimate.

Results

Our approach using an additional covariate yielded major improvement in model accuracy: R² increased from 0.14 to 0.23, and model performance also improved on predictive accuracy and information criteria. Treatment effect estimates and conclusions were unaffected. Our approach with respect to treatment variable yielded no substantial improvements in model performance, but post hoc analyses show an association between treatment effect estimate and estimated LOS at baseline.

Conclusion

Allocation of scarce palliative care capacity and value-based reimbursement models should take into consideration when and for whom the intervention has the largest impact on treatment choices. An individual's predicted LOS at baseline is useful in this context for accurately predicting costs, and potentially has further benefits in modelling treatment effects.

SUBMITTER: May P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8454145 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Economics of care for adults with serious illness is a policy priority worldwide. Palliative care may lower costs for hospitalized adults, but the evidence has important limitations. Objective:To estimate the association of palliative care consultation (PCC) with direct hospital costs for adults with serious illness. Data Sources:Systematic searches of the Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were performed for English-language journal articles using keywords in the domains of palliative care (eg, palliative, terminal) and economics (eg, cost, utilization), with limiters for hospital and consultation. For Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, we searched without a time limitation. For PubMed, CINAHL, and EconLit, we searched for articles published after August 1, 2013. Data analysis was performed from April 8, 2017, to September 16, 2017. Study Selection:Economic evaluations of interdisciplinary PCC for hospitalized adults with at least 1 of 7 illnesses (cancer; heart, liver, or kidney failure; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; AIDS/HIV; or selected neurodegenerative conditions) in the hospital inpatient setting vs usual care only, controlling for a minimum list of confounders. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Eight eligible studies were identified, all cohort studies, of which 6 provided sufficient information for inclusion. The study estimated the association of PCC within 3 days of admission with direct hospital costs for each sample and for subsamples defined by primary diagnoses and number of comorbidities at admission, controlling for confounding with an instrumental variable when available and otherwise propensity score weighting. Treatment effect estimates were pooled in the meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures:Total direct hospital costs. Results:This study included 6 samples with a total 133 118 patients (range, 1020-82 273), of whom 93.2% were discharged alive (range, 89.0%-98.4%), 40.8% had a primary diagnosis of cancer (range, 15.7%-100.0%), and 3.6% received a PCC (range, 2.2%-22.3%). Mean Elixhauser index scores ranged from 2.2 to 3.5 among the studies. When patients were pooled irrespective of diagnosis, there was a statistically significant reduction in costs (-$3237; 95% CI, -$3581 to -$2893; P < .001). In the stratified analyses, there was a reduction in costs for the cancer (-$4251; 95% CI, -$4664 to -$3837; P < .001) and noncancer (-$2105; 95% CI, -$2698 to -$1511; P < .001) subsamples. The reduction in cost was greater in those with 4 or more comorbidities than for those with 2 or fewer. Conclusions and Relevance:The estimated association of early hospital PCC with hospital costs may vary according to baseline clinical factors. Estimates may be larger for primary diagnosis of cancer and more comorbidities compared with primary diagnosis of noncancer and fewer comorbidities. Increasing palliative care capacity to meet national guidelines may reduce costs for hospitalized adults with serious and complex illnesses.

Project description:Background: Natural language processing (NLP), a form of computer-assisted data abstraction, rapidly identifies serious illness communication domains such as code-status confirmation and goals of care (GOC) discussions within free-text notes, using a codebook of phrases. Differences in the phrases associated with palliative care for patients with different types of illness are unknown. Objective: To compare communication of code-status clarification and GOC discussions between patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing palliative procedures and patients admitted with life-threatening trauma. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Patients with in-hospital admissions within two academic medical centers. Measurements: Sensitivity and specificity of NLP-identified communication domains compared with manual review. Results: Among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (n = 523), NLP identified code-status clarification in 54% of admissions and GOC discussions in 49% of admissions. The sensitivity and specificity for code-status clarification were 94% and 99% respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for a GOC discussion were 93% and 100%, respectively. Using the same codebook in patients with life-threatening trauma (n = 2093), NLP identified code-status clarification in 25.9% of admissions and GOC discussions in 6.3% of admissions. While NLP identification had 100% specificity, the sensitivity for code-status clarification and GOC discussion was reduced to 86% and 50%, respectively. Adding dynamic phrases such as "ongoing discussions" and phrases related to "family meetings" increased the sensitivity of the NLP codebook for code status to 98% and for GOC discussions to 100%. Conclusions: Communication of code status and GOC differ between patients with advanced cancer and those with life-threatening trauma. Recognition of these differences can aid in identification in patterns of palliative care delivery.