自动选择患者并提供护理指导,以增加癌症患者的预先护理规划。

IF 9.9 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Michael F Gensheimer, Winifred Teuteberg, Manali I Patel, Divya Gupta, Mahjabin Noroozi, Xi Ling, Touran Fardeen, Briththa Seevaratnam, Ying Lu, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jan Denofrio, Jennifer Hansen, Nigam H Shah, Thomas Chen, Elwyn Cabebe, Douglas W Blayney, A Dimitrios Colevas, Kavitha Ramchandran
{"title":"自动选择患者并提供护理指导,以增加癌症患者的预先护理规划。","authors":"Michael F Gensheimer, Winifred Teuteberg, Manali I Patel, Divya Gupta, Mahjabin Noroozi, Xi Ling, Touran Fardeen, Briththa Seevaratnam, Ying Lu, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jan Denofrio, Jennifer Hansen, Nigam H Shah, Thomas Chen, Elwyn Cabebe, Douglas W Blayney, A Dimitrios Colevas, Kavitha Ramchandran","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning/serious illness conversations can help clinicians understand patients' values and preferences. There are limited data on how to increase these conversations, and their effect on care patterns. We hypothesized that using a machine learning survival model to select patients for serious illness conversations, along with trained care coaches to conduct the conversations, would increase uptake in cancer patients at high risk of short-term mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cluster-randomized stepped wedge study on the physician level. Oncologists entered the intervention condition in a random order over six months. Adult patients with metastatic cancer were included. Patients with <2 year computer-predicted survival and no prognosis documentation were classified as high-priority for serious illness conversations. In the intervention condition, providers received automated weekly emails highlighting high-priority patients and were asked to document prognosis for them. Care coaches reached out to these patients to conduct the remainder of the conversation. The primary endpoint was proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>6,372 visits in 1,825 patients were included in the primary analysis. The proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days was higher in the intervention condition than control condition: 2.9% vs 1.1% (adjusted odds ratio 4.3, p < .0001). The proportion of visits with advance care planning documentation was also higher in the intervention condition: 7.7% vs 1.8% (adjusted odds ratio 14.2, p < .0001). In high-priority visits, advance care planning documentation rate in intervention/control visits was 24.2% vs 4.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention increased documented conversations, with contributions by both providers and care coaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":14809,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated patient selection and care coaches to increase advance care planning for cancer patients.\",\"authors\":\"Michael F Gensheimer, Winifred Teuteberg, Manali I Patel, Divya Gupta, Mahjabin Noroozi, Xi Ling, Touran Fardeen, Briththa Seevaratnam, Ying Lu, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jan Denofrio, Jennifer Hansen, Nigam H Shah, Thomas Chen, Elwyn Cabebe, Douglas W Blayney, A Dimitrios Colevas, Kavitha Ramchandran\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djae243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning/serious illness conversations can help clinicians understand patients' values and preferences. There are limited data on how to increase these conversations, and their effect on care patterns. We hypothesized that using a machine learning survival model to select patients for serious illness conversations, along with trained care coaches to conduct the conversations, would increase uptake in cancer patients at high risk of short-term mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cluster-randomized stepped wedge study on the physician level. Oncologists entered the intervention condition in a random order over six months. Adult patients with metastatic cancer were included. Patients with <2 year computer-predicted survival and no prognosis documentation were classified as high-priority for serious illness conversations. In the intervention condition, providers received automated weekly emails highlighting high-priority patients and were asked to document prognosis for them. Care coaches reached out to these patients to conduct the remainder of the conversation. The primary endpoint was proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>6,372 visits in 1,825 patients were included in the primary analysis. The proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days was higher in the intervention condition than control condition: 2.9% vs 1.1% (adjusted odds ratio 4.3, p < .0001). The proportion of visits with advance care planning documentation was also higher in the intervention condition: 7.7% vs 1.8% (adjusted odds ratio 14.2, p < .0001). In high-priority visits, advance care planning documentation rate in intervention/control visits was 24.2% vs 4.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention increased documented conversations, with contributions by both providers and care coaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae243\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae243","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:预先护理计划/重病谈话可帮助临床医生了解患者的价值观和偏好。关于如何增加这些对话及其对护理模式的影响的数据很有限。我们假设,使用机器学习生存模型来选择接受重病谈话的患者,并由训练有素的护理辅导员进行谈话,将提高短期死亡风险较高的癌症患者对重病谈话的接受度:我们在医生层面开展了分组随机阶梯式楔形研究。肿瘤学家在六个月内以随机顺序进入干预条件。研究对象包括成年转移性癌症患者。结果主要分析包括 1,825 名患者的 6,372 次就诊。与对照组相比,干预组在 14 天内记录预后的就诊比例更高:2.9% 对 1.1%(调整后的几率比为 4.3,p 结论:干预增加了有记录的对话,这对患者的治疗有很大帮助:干预增加了有记录的谈话,医疗服务提供者和护理辅导员都做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated patient selection and care coaches to increase advance care planning for cancer patients.

Background: Advance care planning/serious illness conversations can help clinicians understand patients' values and preferences. There are limited data on how to increase these conversations, and their effect on care patterns. We hypothesized that using a machine learning survival model to select patients for serious illness conversations, along with trained care coaches to conduct the conversations, would increase uptake in cancer patients at high risk of short-term mortality.

Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized stepped wedge study on the physician level. Oncologists entered the intervention condition in a random order over six months. Adult patients with metastatic cancer were included. Patients with <2 year computer-predicted survival and no prognosis documentation were classified as high-priority for serious illness conversations. In the intervention condition, providers received automated weekly emails highlighting high-priority patients and were asked to document prognosis for them. Care coaches reached out to these patients to conduct the remainder of the conversation. The primary endpoint was proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days.

Results: 6,372 visits in 1,825 patients were included in the primary analysis. The proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days was higher in the intervention condition than control condition: 2.9% vs 1.1% (adjusted odds ratio 4.3, p < .0001). The proportion of visits with advance care planning documentation was also higher in the intervention condition: 7.7% vs 1.8% (adjusted odds ratio 14.2, p < .0001). In high-priority visits, advance care planning documentation rate in intervention/control visits was 24.2% vs 4.0%.

Conclusion: The intervention increased documented conversations, with contributions by both providers and care coaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
203
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a reputable publication that undergoes a peer-review process. It is available in both print (ISSN: 0027-8874) and online (ISSN: 1460-2105) formats, with 12 issues released annually. The journal's primary aim is to disseminate innovative and important discoveries in the field of cancer research, with specific emphasis on clinical, epidemiologic, behavioral, and health outcomes studies. Authors are encouraged to submit reviews, minireviews, and commentaries. The journal ensures that submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and expedited review to publish scientifically and medically significant findings in a timely manner.
×
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