Impact of Prognostic Notifications on Inpatient Advance Care Planning: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jessica E Ma, Kayla W Kilpatrick, Clemontina A Davenport, Jonathan Walter, Yvonne Acker, Noppon Setji, Maren K Olsen, Mihir Patel, Michael Gao, Matthew Gardner, Jamie Gollon, Mark Sendak, Suresh Balu, David Casarett
{"title":"Impact of Prognostic Notifications on Inpatient Advance Care Planning: A Cluster Randomized Trial.","authors":"Jessica E Ma, Kayla W Kilpatrick, Clemontina A Davenport, Jonathan Walter, Yvonne Acker, Noppon Setji, Maren K Olsen, Mihir Patel, Michael Gao, Matthew Gardner, Jamie Gollon, Mark Sendak, Suresh Balu, David Casarett","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A poor prognosis is an important trigger for advance care planning (ACP) conversations, but clinicians often overestimate prognosis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether ACP note documentation increases by notifying inpatient physicians that a patient is at high risk of mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pragmatic cluster randomized trial at an academic medical center from September 2021 to December 2022 randomized attending physicians on the inpatient medicine team. An email and page notification was sent to physicians randomized to intervention group for admitted patients at high risk of 30-day and 6-month death based on a machine learning model. The notification recommended to have and document an ACP conversation in the electronic health record (EHR). The primary outcome was documentation of an ACP conversation during hospital admission by the randomized physician. The secondary outcome was ACP note documented by any clinician during the hospital admission. Healthcare utilization outcomes included length of stay and discharge to hospice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy randomized physicians (35 in each group) cared for 314 unique patients (138 control and 176 intervention) at high risk of mortality. Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were more likely to have a documented ACP conversation by the randomized physician compared to the control group (34.7% vs. 19.6%; OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.16-3.59). There was no significant change in ACP documentation by any clinician (52.8% intervention vs. 42.8% control group, OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.81-2.13).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Machine learning mortality model notifications can motivate physicians to document ACP conversations during a hospitalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.08.013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A poor prognosis is an important trigger for advance care planning (ACP) conversations, but clinicians often overestimate prognosis.

Objective: To determine whether ACP note documentation increases by notifying inpatient physicians that a patient is at high risk of mortality.

Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial at an academic medical center from September 2021 to December 2022 randomized attending physicians on the inpatient medicine team. An email and page notification was sent to physicians randomized to intervention group for admitted patients at high risk of 30-day and 6-month death based on a machine learning model. The notification recommended to have and document an ACP conversation in the electronic health record (EHR). The primary outcome was documentation of an ACP conversation during hospital admission by the randomized physician. The secondary outcome was ACP note documented by any clinician during the hospital admission. Healthcare utilization outcomes included length of stay and discharge to hospice.

Results: Seventy randomized physicians (35 in each group) cared for 314 unique patients (138 control and 176 intervention) at high risk of mortality. Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were more likely to have a documented ACP conversation by the randomized physician compared to the control group (34.7% vs. 19.6%; OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.16-3.59). There was no significant change in ACP documentation by any clinician (52.8% intervention vs. 42.8% control group, OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.81-2.13).

Conclusions: Machine learning mortality model notifications can motivate physicians to document ACP conversations during a hospitalization.

预后通知对住院病人提前护理计划的影响:一项聚类随机试验
背景:不良预后是提前护理计划(ACP)对话的重要触发因素,但临床医生往往高估预后。目的:确定ACP记录是否通过通知住院医生患者处于高死亡率风险而增加。方法:于2021年9月至2022年12月在某学术医疗中心进行实用群随机试验,随机抽取住院医学团队的主治医师。根据机器学习模型,将电子邮件和页面通知发送给随机分配到干预组的住院患者,这些患者有30天和6个月死亡的高风险。通知建议在电子健康记录(EHR)中进行并记录ACP对话。主要结局是随机医生入院期间ACP对话的记录。次要终点是住院期间任何临床医生记录的ACP记录。医疗保健利用结果包括住院时间和出院时间。结果:70名随机医生(每组35名)治疗了314名死亡率高的独特患者(对照组138名,干预组176名)。与对照组相比,被随机分配到干预组的医生的患者更有可能与随机分配的医生进行记录的ACP对话(34.7%对19.6%;OR 2.04; 95%CI 1.16至3.59)。任何临床医生对ACP的记录没有显著变化(干预组为52.8%,对照组为42.8%,OR为1.31;95% CI为0.81至2.13)。结论:机器学习死亡率模型通知可以激励医生在住院期间记录ACP对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信