Piloting the REDUCE score to decrease acute care utilization.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 252-252
Author(s):  
Valerie Pracilio Csik ◽  
Michael Li ◽  
Lauren Waldman ◽  
Brooke Worster ◽  
Adam F Binder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Interdisciplinary Team ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Distress Score ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Acute Care Utilization

252 Background: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common in patients with cancer, with nearly three quarters of patients with advanced disease hospitalized at least once in the year after their diagnosis. Efforts to prospectively identify patients at highest risk for this acute care utilization (ACU) are needed. While many risk scoring systems have been developed for this purpose, few have been effectively integrated into clinical practice. We piloted a prospective risk assessment tool using a quality improvement framework. Methods: We utilized our previously published REDUCE score (Reducing ED Utilization in the Cancer Experience) to pilot clinical interventions to reduce ACU using PDSA cycles. Cycle 1 included a chart review and targeted outreach by a nurse navigator to high risk patients identified by REDUCE. Outreach resulted in communication of patient needs to the care team, which may or may not have resulted in additional interventions. Cycle 2 involved initial identification by REDUCE followed by further assessment with a distress screening. Those who were high risk and had high distress (score ≥4) were discussed by an interdisciplinary team (including supportive medicine physicians, social work, nurses, nurse practitioners) to determine an appropriate intervention. Results: Of the patients in Cycle 1 (N = 138), 26.1% had ACU after outreach by a nurse navigator, while in Cycle 2 (N = 169) 7.1% had ACU after the intervention determined by the interdisciplinary team. The average distress score among all patients in Cycle 2 was 6.0 and the REDUCE score was 2.87, while the subset of patients who experienced ACU had an average distress score of 6.4 and a REDUCE score of 3.22. Conclusions: The REDUCE score may be a valuable tool to assist in identifying patients at risk for ACU. We found that combining the risk score with a biopsychosocial screening tool and multidisciplinary team discussion may prove more valuable than the risk score alone, with Cycle 2 findings suggesting that there is a directional correlation between REDUCE score and distress screening results. More work is needed to understand the relative impact of the REDUCE score and the biopsychosocial screening and team discussion on decreasing ACU.

Can acute care utilization be reduced by a risk score-based intervention alone?

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13523-e13523
Author(s):  
Valerie Pracilio Csik ◽  
Adam F Binder ◽  
Nathan Handley ◽  
Michael Li ◽  
Megan Croyle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Distress Score ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Care Utilization

e13523 Background: Acute care utilization (ACU), encompassing both emergency department visits and hospitalizations, is common in patients with cancer, with nearly three quarters of patients with advanced disease hospitalized at least once in the year after their diagnosis. From a population health perspective, focusing on the highest risk patients is likely to identify the top 5% while the next 30% can be considered rising risk and are likely to need care management support. Many risk scoring systems have been developed, but few have demonstrated effective integration in clinical practice. We sought to evaluate if a risk assessment tool alone was adequate to determine an appropriate patient outreach strategy that results in reduced ACU. Methods: We utilized the REDUCE score (Reducing ED Utilization in the Cancer Experience - see 2020 ASCO Quality Abstract 208) to develop an intervention conducted in two phases. Phase I included a chart review and targeted outreach to high risk patients identified by REDUCE by a nurse navigator. Outreach resulted in communication of patient needs to the care team. Phase II involved initial identification by REDUCE followed by further screening assessment with a distress screen. Those who were high risk and had high distress (score ≥4) were discussed by an interdisciplinary team (supportive medicine physicians, social work, nurses, nurse practitioners) to determine an intervention. Results: Of the patients in phase I (N = 138), 26.1% had ACU afterward, while in phase II (N = 169) 7.1% had ACU. The average distress score among all patients in the phase II group was 6.0 and the REDUCE score was 2.87, while the subset of patients who experienced ACU had an average distress score of 6.4 and a REDUCE score of 3.22. These findings indicate that there is a directional correlation between REDUCE score and distress screening results. Conclusions: The REDUCE score may be a valuable tool to assist in identifying patients at risk for ACU, but the significantly less ACU in phase II compared to phase I suggests that the risk score combined with a biopsychosocial screening, such as distress as required by the Commission on Cancer, may prove more valuable than the risk score alone. To identify the most impactful intervention, and to fully understand the implications of a patient’s specific REDUCE score within the high risk category, additional assessment would be beneficial. These preliminary results highlight that directionally correlated measures obtained from a biopsychosocial screening in combination with a risk score gives a more complete picture of patient’s overall risk of ACU.

Implementing a clinical risk prediction tool for patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS2086-TPS2086
Author(s):  
Nathan Handley ◽  
Adam Binder ◽  
Michael Li ◽  
Aliya Rogers ◽  
Valerie Pracilio Csik
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Nursing Intervention ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Active Cancer

TPS2086 Background: Acute care utilization (ACU), encompassing both emergency department visits and hospitalizations, is common in patients with cancer, with nearly three quarters of patients with advanced disease hospitalized at least once in the year after their diagnosis. Efforts to prospectively identify these patients prior to ACU have led to the development of a variety of scoring systems for specific cancer patient populations, including the elderly and those initiating palliative infusional chemotherapy. Prospectively identifying patients may enable early interventions to reduce ACU. However, few studies have demonstrated effective implementation of such prediction tools in clinical practice. We developed an oncology risk score (ORS) for active oncology patients (defined as patients with an active cancer diagnosis in the last 12 months who had a Medical Oncology encounter in a 180-day period ) to prospectively determine risk of ACU. Patients are defined as high risk (18% of patients, accounting for 57% of historical ACU), intermediate risk (25% of patients, accounting for 25% of ACU), or low risk (56% of patients, accounting for 18% of ACU) by the ORS. We are currently deploying a pragmatic implementation initiative to evaluate the impact of targeted nurse navigator (NN) outreach to patients defined as high risk for ACU by the ORS. Methods: The ORS is embedded within the health system electronic medical record. The ORS will be queried on a weekly basis. NNs will contact identified patients, prioritizing patients not yet identified by the navigation team by other means. Following chart review, NNs will either meet patients in person (if a visit is already planned within 24 hours) or complete standard navigation outreach and documentation (consisting of phone call and barrier assessment, as well as appropriate nursing intervention) if no visit is planned. NNs will determine follow up cadence based on clinical judgement. Efficacy will be determined using a case-control method. Case patients will be OCM patients defined as high risk by the ORS (historical n = 289); control patients will be non-OCM high risk patients (historical n = 388). The total number of patients in the case and control groups, as well as the proportion of patients in the group utilizing acute care, will be monitored over time. Proportion of high risk patients known to navigation will be tracked. ACU in medium and low risk groups will also be monitored. Targeted outreach to high risk patients using the ORS began on 2/5/2019.

Prospectively assessing risk of acute care utilization for patients with an active cancer diagnosis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Valerie Pracilio Csik ◽  
Adam Binder ◽  
Michael Li ◽  
Nathan Handley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Significant Variable ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Acute Care Utilization ◽  
Active Cancer

208 Background: Acute care utilization (ACU)--emergency department visits or hospitalizations--is common in patients with cancer. As many as 83% of all patients with cancer visit the emergency department annually; nearly three quarters of patients with advanced cancer are hospitalized in the year after diagnosis. Much of this ACU may be preventable. Identifying patients at risk for ACU using model-based approaches has shown potential for risk stratifying certain patient subgroups. However, a model applicable to any patient with an active cancer diagnosis is needed. We developed a real time clinical prediction model to assess risk for acute care utilization in patients with an active cancer diagnosis. Methods: We completed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with an active cancer diagnosis (defined as at least one medical oncology encounter in a 12 month period) at one health system. Clinical factors with potential to impact disease progression and ACU were identified through a clinical review. Significant variables were defined by multivariate logistic regression. Risk of ACU was further characterized through the development of a point scoring system to define the upper decile of patients at highest risk. Results: We included 8,246 patient records in the analysis. Seven variables were determined to be statistically significant: An emergency department visit in the last 90 days, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, low hemoglobin, low albumin, and low absolute neutrophil count. The model produced an overall C-statistic of 0.726 Each significant variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1 (with the exception of ED visits, which were given one point for each visit, with three points maximum). Each patient received a total score, resulting from the summation of the individual variable scores. An evaluation of the distribution of points determined that 10% of the patients achieved a score of 2 or higher and contributed to 46% of ACU in the last 90 days. Patients receiving 0 points were defined as low risk (73% of patients contributing to 30% of ED/admissions). Patients receiving 1 point were deemed intermediate risk (17% of patients contributing to 24% of ED/admissions). Conclusions: Risk of acute care utilization for patients with an active cancer diagnosis can be prospectively assessed. This tool is currently integrated into our clinical practice and is updated every 14 days, or any time the chart is accessed. Assessment of efficacy is ongoing.

scholarly journals Effect of Psychiatric Illness on Acute Care Utilization at End of Life From Serious Medical Illness

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-185.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Lavin ◽  
Dimitry S. Davydow ◽  
Lois Downey ◽  
Ruth A. Engelberg ◽  
Ben Dunlap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Acute Care Utilization

The Association of Antibiotic (ATB) exposure prior to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment on early emergency room and hospitalization utilization: A population-based study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 304-304
Author(s):  
Lawson Eng ◽  
Rinku Sutradhar ◽  
Yue Niu ◽  
Ning Liu ◽  
Ying Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Room ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Dose Effect ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Comorbidity Score ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Acute Care Utilization ◽  
The Impact

304 Background: ICIs are becoming a common therapeutic option for many solid tumors. Prior studies have shown that ATB exposure can negatively impact ICI outcomes through gut microbiome changes leading to poorer overall survival; however, less is known about the potential impact of ATB exposure on toxicities from ICI. We undertook a population-based retrospective cohort study in patients receiving ICIs to evaluate the impact of ATB exposure on early acute care use, defined as emergency department visit or hospitalization, within 30 days of initiation of ICI therapy. Methods: Administrative data was utilized to identify a cohort of cancer patients > 65 years of age receiving ICIs from June 2012 to October 2018 in Ontario, Canada. We linked databases deterministically to obtain socio-demographic and clinical co-variates, ATB prescription claims and acute care utilization. Patients were censored if they died within 30 days of initiating ICI therapy. The impact of ATB exposure within 60 days prior to starting ICI on early acute care use was evaluated using multi-variable logistic regression models, adjusted for age, gender, rurality, recent hospitalization within 60 days prior to starting ICI and comorbidity score. Results: Among 2737 patients (median age 73 years), 43% received Nivolumab, 41% Pembrolizumab and 13% Ipilimumab, most commonly for lung cancer (53%) or melanoma (34%). Of these patients, 19% had ATB within 60 days prior to ICI with a median ATB treatment duration of 9 days (SD = 13). 647 (25%) patients had an acute care episode within 30 days of starting ICIs; 182 (7%) patients passed away within 30 days without acute care use and were censored from further analyses. Any ATB exposure within 60 days prior to ICI was associated with greater likelihood of acute care use (aOR = 1.34 95% CI [1.07-1.67] p = 0.01). A dose effect was seen based on weeks of ATB exposure within 60 days prior to ICI (aOR = 1.12 per week [1.04-1.21] p = 0.004) and early acute care use. ATB class analysis identified that exposure to penicillins (aOR = 1.54 [1.11-2.15] p = 0.01) and fluoroquinolones (aOR = 1.55 [1.11-2.17] p = 0.01) within 60 days of starting ICIs were associated with a greater likelihood of acute care use, while there was no significant association between cephalosporin exposure and early acute care use (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Exposure to ATBs, specifically fluoroquinolones and penicillins, prior to ICI therapy is associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization or emergency room visits within 30 days after initiation of ICIs, even after adjustment for relevant co-variates including age, comorbidity score and recent hospitalization prior to ICI initiation. Further studies are required to better understand the mechanisms of recent ATB exposure on early acute care use among patients receiving ICIs.

Acute care utilization risk among older adults living undiagnosed or unaware of dementia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halima Amjad ◽  
Quincy M. Samus ◽  
Jin Huang ◽  
Sneha Gundavarpu ◽  
Julie P. W. Bynum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Acute Care Utilization

Pediatric stroke: clinical characteristics, acute care utilization patterns, and mortality

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly D. Statler ◽  
Li Dong ◽  
Denise M. Nielsen ◽  
Susan L. Bratton
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Pediatric Stroke ◽  
Utilization Patterns ◽  
Acute Care Utilization

scholarly journals Retrospective Study Evaluating Effect of Voxelotor Treatment on Acute Care Utilization during the Peak of COVID-19

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4179-4179
Author(s):  
Shivani Rao ◽  
Nicole K. Yun ◽  
James L. Coggan ◽  
Peter Wu ◽  
Teresa O'Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Novel Therapies ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Acute Care Utilization ◽  
Urgent Care Clinic ◽  
Acute Medical Care

Abstract Introduction In sickle cell disease (SCD), the polymerization of deoxygenated HbS fundamentally alters the structure of the erythrocyte, producing the sickle cell that is characteristic of the disease. Clinical manifestations often perceived in patients suffering from SCD include vaso-occlusion, anemia, and hemolysis. Due to these sequelae, patients frequent the emergency room (ER), urgent care clinic, and hospital. Voxelotor, an oral medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 for the treatment of SCD, directly targets the pathophysiology of SCD by inhibiting deoxygenated HbS polymerization. Results of the Phase III HOPE trial indicate that the drug can increase hemoglobin levels and reduce markers of hemolysis as well as the incidence of worsening anemia in patients with SCD (Vichinsky et al. N Engl J Med 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic has posed several challenges for patients with SCD in 2020. Amid the pandemic, patients continued to seek out acute medical care, including care in the ER, urgent care clinics, and hospital. The aim of this study was to determine whether utilization of acute medical care differed for patients who received voxelotor before and after therapy in 2020. We also evaluated the utilization of healthcare through telemedicine platforms to facilitate access to novel therapies such as voxelotor for patients with SCD. Methods 13 patients (≥18 years of age as of January 1, 2020) with SCD who had begun treatment with voxelotor between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included in the initial analysis. Six patients were excluded from final analysis: three discontinued treatment due to side effects, one was noncompliant with treatment, and two were lost to follow-up. Acute care utilization, measured by the number of times each patient visited the ER, urgent care clinic, and hospital was compared for each patient in the period six months prior to their first dose of voxelotor and in the period six months after their last dose of the drug in 2020 using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests. Demographic information and the type of visit at which patients agreed to proceed with voxeletor was recorded for each patient. Simple linear regressions and multiple regressions controlled for covariates, defined as sex, BMI, age, type of insurance coverage, and duration of treatment. Results All seven (100%) patients discussed voxelotor treatment with their provider during a telehealth video visit. In the period before initiating treatment, patients frequented the ER an average of 2.71 (SD=6.75) times. In the six months after their last dose, patients visited the ER less than they had in the period prior to treatment, on average 0.57 (SD=0.79) times. This difference did not achieve statistical significance (p>0.9999). The mean number of visits to the urgent care clinic in the six months before treatment was 2.71 (SD=6.75) compared to 2 (SD=4) in the period after patients' last dose in 2020. This finding was not statistically significant (p>0.9999). Hospitalizations, on average, decreased significantly from 5.14 (SD=2.34) in the six months before starting treatment to 1.57 (SD=0.98) after ending therapy for 2020 (p=0.0015). Covariates did not have an effect on the differences in acute care utilization before treatment and after last treatment in 2020. Conclusions The findings of this study imply that treatment with voxelotor was associated with a decrease in the frequency of hospitalizations for the seven patients analyzed. This finding can potentially be attributed to the efficacy of voxelotor in improving anemia and reducing complications associated with SCD. While the difference between ER visits and urgent care visits before treatment and after the last dose in 2020 did not achieve statistical significance, likely due to small sample size, the data does suggest a reduction in both outcomes. In addition, the observation that all visits in which patient and provider discussed and initiated treatment were virtual support the use of telemedicine technology to improve access to multidisciplinary care and novel therapies for SCD patients. The impact of voxelotor treatment will continue to be assessed in SCD patients at our institution, and more data from clinical encounters will lead to a greater understanding of the efficacy of voxelotor. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Jain: GBT: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other: advisory board; Argenx: Other: advisory board; DOVA: Other: advisory board.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document