Methods to Enhance Causal Inference for Assessing Impact of Clinical Informatics Platform Implementation.

IF 6.9 2区 医学
Michael Gaies, Mary K Olive, Gabe E Owens, John R Charpie, Wenying Zhang, Sara K Pasquali, Darren Klugman, John M Costello, Steven M Schwartz, Mousumi Banerjee
{"title":"Methods to Enhance Causal Inference for Assessing Impact of Clinical Informatics Platform Implementation.","authors":"Michael Gaies,&nbsp;Mary K Olive,&nbsp;Gabe E Owens,&nbsp;John R Charpie,&nbsp;Wenying Zhang,&nbsp;Sara K Pasquali,&nbsp;Darren Klugman,&nbsp;John M Costello,&nbsp;Steven M Schwartz,&nbsp;Mousumi Banerjee","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospitals are increasingly likely to implement clinical informatics tools to improve quality of care, necessitating rigorous approaches to evaluate effectiveness. We leveraged a multi-institutional data repository and applied causal inference methods to assess implementation of a commercial data visualization software in our pediatric cardiac intensive care unit.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Natural experiment in the University of Michigan (UM) Cardiac Intensive Care Unit pre and postimplementation of data visualization software analyzed within the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium clinical registry; we identified N=21 control hospitals that contributed contemporaneous registry data during the study period. We used the platform during multiple daily rounds to visualize clinical data trends. We evaluated outcomes-case-mix adjusted postoperative mortality, cardiac arrest and unplanned readmission rates, and postoperative length of stay-most likely impacted by this change. There were no quality improvement initiatives focused specifically on these outcomes nor any organizational changes at UM in either era. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis to compare changes in UM outcomes to those at control hospitals across the pre versus postimplementation eras.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We compared 1436 pre versus 779 postimplementation admissions at UM to 19 854 (pre) versus 14 160 (post) at controls. Admission characteristics were similar between eras. Postimplementation at UM we observed relative reductions in cardiac arrests among medical admissions, unplanned readmissions, and postoperative length of stay by -14%, -41%, and -18%, respectively. The difference-in-differences estimate for each outcome was statistically significant (<i>P</i><0.05), suggesting the difference in outcomes at UM pre versus postimplementation is statistically significantly different from control hospitals during the same time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinical registries provide opportunities to thoroughly evaluate implementation of new informatics tools at single institutions. Borrowing strength from multi-institutional data and drawing ideas from causal inference, our analysis solidified greater belief in the effectiveness of this software across our institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":10301,"journal":{"name":"Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":"16 2","pages":"e009277"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009277","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hospitals are increasingly likely to implement clinical informatics tools to improve quality of care, necessitating rigorous approaches to evaluate effectiveness. We leveraged a multi-institutional data repository and applied causal inference methods to assess implementation of a commercial data visualization software in our pediatric cardiac intensive care unit.

Methods: Natural experiment in the University of Michigan (UM) Cardiac Intensive Care Unit pre and postimplementation of data visualization software analyzed within the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium clinical registry; we identified N=21 control hospitals that contributed contemporaneous registry data during the study period. We used the platform during multiple daily rounds to visualize clinical data trends. We evaluated outcomes-case-mix adjusted postoperative mortality, cardiac arrest and unplanned readmission rates, and postoperative length of stay-most likely impacted by this change. There were no quality improvement initiatives focused specifically on these outcomes nor any organizational changes at UM in either era. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis to compare changes in UM outcomes to those at control hospitals across the pre versus postimplementation eras.

Results: We compared 1436 pre versus 779 postimplementation admissions at UM to 19 854 (pre) versus 14 160 (post) at controls. Admission characteristics were similar between eras. Postimplementation at UM we observed relative reductions in cardiac arrests among medical admissions, unplanned readmissions, and postoperative length of stay by -14%, -41%, and -18%, respectively. The difference-in-differences estimate for each outcome was statistically significant (P<0.05), suggesting the difference in outcomes at UM pre versus postimplementation is statistically significantly different from control hospitals during the same time.

Conclusions: Clinical registries provide opportunities to thoroughly evaluate implementation of new informatics tools at single institutions. Borrowing strength from multi-institutional data and drawing ideas from causal inference, our analysis solidified greater belief in the effectiveness of this software across our institution.

临床信息学平台实施效果评估的强化因果推理方法。
背景:医院越来越有可能采用临床信息学工具来提高护理质量,因此需要严格的方法来评估效果。我们利用多机构数据存储库,并应用因果推理方法来评估商业数据可视化软件在小儿心脏重症监护病房的实施情况。方法:在密歇根大学(UM)心脏重症监护病房进行自然实验,分析儿童心脏重症监护协会临床登记的数据可视化软件实施前后的情况;我们确定了在研究期间提供同期登记数据的N=21家对照医院。我们在多次日常查房中使用该平台来可视化临床数据趋势。我们评估了结果——病例组合调整后的术后死亡率、心脏骤停和计划外再入院率,以及术后住院时间——最有可能受到这一变化的影响。在这两个时代,UM都没有特别关注这些结果的质量改进计划,也没有任何组织变革。我们进行了差异中差异分析,以比较在实施前后,与对照医院的UM结果的变化。结果:我们比较了UM实施前1436例和实施后779例的入院人数,对照组的19854例(实施前)和14160例(实施后)。不同时代的入院特征相似。在UM实施后,我们观察到住院患者、计划外再入院患者和术后住院时间的心脏骤停相对减少分别为-14%、-41%和-18%。每个结果的差中差估计具有统计学意义(结论:临床登记提供了在单个机构中彻底评估新信息学工具实施情况的机会。从多机构的数据中汲取力量,从因果推理中得出想法,我们的分析在整个机构中巩固了对该软件有效性的更大信念。
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
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
357
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信