Predictive Modeling for Adverse Events and Risk Stratification Programs for People Receiving Cancer Treatment

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.21.00198
Author(s):  
Chelsea K. Osterman ◽  
Hanna K. Sanoff ◽  
William A. Wood ◽  
Megan Fasold ◽  
Jennifer Elston Lafata
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Predictive Modeling ◽  
Predictive Models ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Targeted Interventions ◽  
Risk Algorithm ◽  
Oncology Care

Emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among people receiving cancer treatment, accounting for a large proportion of spending in oncology care and negatively affecting quality of life. As oncology care shifts toward value- and quality-based payment models, there is a need to develop interventions that can prevent these costly and low-value events among people receiving cancer treatment. Risk stratification programs have the potential to address this need and optimally would consist of three components: (1) a risk stratification algorithm that accurately identifies patients with modifiable risk(s), (2) intervention(s) that successfully reduce this risk, and (3) the ability to implement the risk algorithm and intervention(s) in an adaptable and sustainable way. Predictive modeling is a common method of risk stratification, and although a number of predictive models have been developed for use in oncology care, they have rarely been tested alongside corresponding interventions or developed with implementation in clinical practice as an explicit consideration. In this article, we review the available published predictive models for treatment-related toxicity or acute care events among people receiving cancer treatment and highlight challenges faced when attempting to use these models in practice. To move the field of risk-stratified oncology care forward, we argue that it is critical to evaluate predictive models alongside targeted interventions that address modifiable risks and to demonstrate that these two key components can be implemented within clinical practice to avoid unplanned acute care events among people receiving cancer treatment.

Patterns and Results of Triage Advice Before Emergency Department Visits Made by Patients With Cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00617
Author(s):  
Arthur S. Hong ◽  
Hannah Chang ◽  
D. Mark Courtney ◽  
Hannah Fullington ◽  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Telephone Triage ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
The University

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer undergoing treatment frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for commonly anticipated complaints (eg, pain, nausea, and vomiting). Nearly all Medicare Oncology Care Model (OCM) participants prioritized ED use reduction, and the OCM requires that patients have 24-hour telephone access to a clinician, but actual reductions in ED visits have been mixed. Little is known about the use of telephone triage for acute care. METHODS: We identified adults aged 18+ years newly diagnosed with cancer, linked to ED visits from a single institution within 6 months after diagnosis, and then analyzed the telephone and secure electronic messages in the preceding 24 hours. We coded interactions to classify the reason for the call, the main ED referrer, and other attempted management. We compared the acuity of patient self-referred versus clinician-referred ED visits by modeling hospitalization and ED visit severity. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2018, 3,247 adults made 5,371 ED visits to the university hospital and self-referred to the ED 58.5% of the time. Clinicians referred to outpatient or oncology urgent care for 10.3% of calls but referred to the ED for 61.3%. Patient self-referred ED visits were likely to be hospitalized (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 0.89, 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22) and were not more severe (aOR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02) than clinician referred. CONCLUSION: Although patients self-referred for six of every 10 ED visits, self-referred visits were not more severe. When patients called for advice, clinicians regularly recommended the ED. More should be done to understand barriers that patients and clinicians experience when trying to access non-ED acute care.

A solution to reducing avoidable emergency department visits: Implementation of an outpatient oncology acute care clinic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13517-e13517
Author(s):  
Sadaf Charania ◽  
Judy Devlin ◽  
Edie Brucker ◽  
Shayna Simon ◽  
Christine Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Outpatient Basis ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Ed Visits

e13517 Background: Emergency Department (ED) utilization by oncology patients accounts for more than 4.5 million visits in the United States annually, leading to hospitalization four times the rate of the general population.1,2 Many ED visits are the result of symptoms related to cancer or cancer treatment that can be managed on an outpatient basis. Unnecessary admissions lead to possible delays in cancer treatment and increased burden on healthcare resources.3 Simmons Acute Care (SAC), an advanced practice provider (APP)-led clinic, was established in August 2020 to provide an alternative model of oncology care to address these issues. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of key stakeholders was formed to develop an action plan. Institutional data was reviewed to identify the timing and volume of ED visits by oncology patients. Clinic hours were set Monday through Friday, 7:00am – 7:00pm, and referrals were made from primary oncology providers. Evidence-based clinical pathways were developed to standardize patient management, and a data collection plan was implemented to measure outcomes. Internal communications to patients and presentations at staff and faculty meetings occurred to inform patients and clinical staff/providers. Results: From August to December 2020, 165 patient visits were completed in SAC, 141 patients discharged home, 14 patients directly admitted to the hospital, and 10 patients transferred to the ED for a higher level of care. Based on data from 2020, the average cost of an ED visit for an oncology patient was $5,500 and increased to $28,500 if the patient is admitted. Patients with hematologic and gastrointestinal malignancies represented approximately 30% of all visits. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most frequent presenting chief complaint. Conclusions: Supporting oncology patients in the ambulatory setting provided a reduction in admissions and unnecessary ED visits, leading to cost savings/avoidance to the patient and health system. Based on internal cost analyses, there are potential savings of over $2 million to the organization during this 5-month period. Additional studies are underway to assess patient satisfaction, as well as the economic impact for patients. 1. Rui PKK. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2015 emergency department summary tables. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2015_ed_web_tables.pdf 2. Hong AS, Froehlich T, Clayton Hobbs S, Lee SJC, Halm EA. Impact of a Cancer Urgent Care Clinic on Regional Emergency Department Visits. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(6):e501-e509. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00743 3. Roy M, Halbert B, Devlin S, Chiu D, Graue R, Zerillo JA. From metrics to practice: identifying preventable emergency department visits for patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. Published online November 7, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05874-3

scholarly journals Catheter-related complications and mortality of atrial fibrillation ablation following introduction of contact force-sensing technology

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e000058
Author(s):  
Joseph G Akar ◽  
James P Hummel ◽  
Xiaoxi Yao ◽  
Lindsey Sangaralingham ◽  
Sanket Dhruva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Contact Force ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation Ablation ◽  
Esophageal Injury ◽  
Force Sensing ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Complications And Mortality

ObjectivesContact force-sensing catheters allow real-time catheter-tissue contact force monitoring during atrial fibrillation. These catheters were rapidly adopted into clinical practice following market introduction in 2014, but concerns have been raised regarding collateral damage such as esophageal injury. We sought to examine whether the introduction of force-sensing catheters was associated with a change in short-term and intermediate-term acute care use, complications and mortality following atrial fibrillation ablation.DesignRetrospective cohort analysis. We used inverse probability treatment weight matching to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between groups.SettingWe examined patients included in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse who underwent ablation for atrial fibrillation before (2011–2013) and after (2015–2017) the market introduction of contact force-sensing catheters.Main outcome measuresWe examined 30-day and 90-day rates of all-cause acute care use, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, as well as death and hospitalization for catheter-related complications, including atrioesophageal fistula, pericarditis, cardiac tamponade/perforation and stroke/transient ischemic attack.ResultsOur sample included 3470 and 5772 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation before and after market introduction of contact force-sensing catheters, respectively. Complication rates were low and did not differ between the two periods (p>0.10 for each outcome). The 30-day and 90-day mortality was 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively after market introduction and unchanged from prior to 2014. The 90-day rates of all-cause acute care use decreased, from 27.0% in 2011–2013 to 23.9% in 2015–2017 (p<0.001).ConclusionsAF ablation-related catheter complications and mortality are low and there has been no significant change following the introduction of force-sensing catheters.

scholarly journals Using Predictive Modeling and Supervised Machine Learning to Identify Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110193
Author(s):  
Kevin Y. Wang ◽  
Ijezie Ikwuezunma ◽  
Varun Puvanesarajah ◽  
Jacob Babu ◽  
Adam Margalit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Predictive Model ◽  
Predictive Modeling ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Patients At Risk

Study Design: Retrospective review. Objective: To use predictive modeling and machine learning to identify patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) following posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) for degenerative spinal pathology. Methods: Patients undergoing single-level PLF in the inpatient setting were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Our outcome measure of VTE included all patients who experienced a pulmonary embolism and/or deep venous thrombosis within 30-days of surgery. Two different methodologies were used to identify VTE risk: 1) a novel predictive model derived from multivariable logistic regression of significant risk factors, and 2) a tree-based extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm using preoperative variables. The methods were compared against legacy risk-stratification measures: ASA and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using area-under-the-curve (AUC) statistic. Results: 13, 500 patients who underwent single-level PLF met the study criteria. Of these, 0.95% had a VTE within 30-days of surgery. The 5 clinical variables found to be significant in the multivariable predictive model were: age > 65, obesity grade II or above, coronary artery disease, functional status, and prolonged operative time. The predictive model exhibited an AUC of 0.716, which was significantly higher than the AUCs of ASA and CCI (all, P < 0.001), and comparable to that of the XGBoost algorithm ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Predictive analytics and machine learning can be leveraged to aid in identification of patients at risk of VTE following PLF. Surgeons and perioperative teams may find these tools useful to augment clinical decision making risk stratification tool.

scholarly journals Biomarkers for sepsis: past, present and future

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Chesi ◽  
Natale Vazzana ◽  
Claudio Giumelli
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Early Identification ◽  
Antibiotic Stewardship ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Drug Resistant

Sepsis is a complication of severe infection associated with high mortality and open diagnostic issues. Treatment strategies are currently limited and essentially based on prompt recognition, aggressive supportive care and early antibiotic treatment. In the last years, extensive antibiotic use has led to selection, propagation and maintenance of drug-resistant microorganisms. In this context, several biomarkers have been proposed for early identification, etiological definition, risk stratification and improving antibiotic stewardship in septic patient care. Among these molecules, only a few have been translated into clinical practice. In this review, we provided an updated overview of established and developing biomarkers for sepsis, focusing our attention on their pathophysiological profile, advantages, limitations, and appropriate evidence-based use in the management of septic patients.

scholarly journals Consensus Recommendations From the Children’s Oncology Group Nursing Discipline’s State of the Science Symposium: Symptom Assessment During Childhood Cancer Treatment

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 294-299
Author(s):  
Janice S. Withycombe ◽  
Maureen Haugen ◽  
Sue Zupanec ◽  
Catherine F. Macpherson ◽  
Wendy Landier
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Childhood Cancer ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Symptom Trajectories ◽  
Science Symposium ◽  
State Of The Science ◽  
Core Symptoms

Background: Recognizing and addressing illness-related distress has long been a priority for pediatric oncology nurses and the Children’s Oncology Group. Although symptoms are known to be highly prevalent during treatment for childhood cancer, there is currently no guidance for how often symptoms should be assessed, which symptoms should be prioritized for assessment, and how the data should be collected. Methods: The Nursing Discipline, within Children’s Oncology Group, hosted a one-day Interprofessional seminar titled “Symptom Assessment During Childhood Cancer Treatment: State of the Science Symposium.” Following the symposium, an expert panel was assembled to review all available evidence, including information presented and collected during the symposium. Consensus-building discussions were held to identify common themes and to produce recommendations for clinical practice. Results: Four recommendations emerged including (1) the identification of priority “core” symptoms for assessment; (2) inclusion of the child’s voice through self-report, when possible; (3) consistent documentation and communication of symptom assessment results; and (4) implementation of patient/family education related to symptoms. Discussion: Symptom recognition, through appropriate assessment, is the first step in symptom management. The goal for developing and sharing these recommendations is to promote consistent and comparable clinical practice across institutions in regard to symptom assessment during childhood cancer therapy. Integration of these recommendations will set the stage for future studies related to the frequency of symptoms across disease groups, projection of anticipated symptom trajectories, development of evidence-based teaching tools for common symptoms, and evaluation of patient outcomes with enhanced symptom assessment and management.

scholarly journals Emergency department visits for children with acute asthma: discharge instructions, parental plans, and follow-through of care—a prospective study

CJEM ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (06) ◽  
pp. 467-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pat G. Camp ◽  
Seamus P. Norton ◽  
Ran D. Goldman ◽  
Salomeh Shajari ◽  
M. Anne Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Family Doctor ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Asthma Exacerbations ◽  
Initial Care ◽  
Children With Asthma ◽  
Tract Infections ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective: Communication between emergency department (ED) staff and parents of children with asthma may play a role in asthma exacerbation management. We investigated the extent to which parents of children with asthma implement recommendations provided by the ED staff. Method: We asked questions on asthma triggers, ED care (including education and discharge recommendations), and asthma management strategies used at home shortly after the ED visit and again at 6 months. Results: A total of 148 children with asthma were recruited. Thirty-two percent of children were not on inhaled corticosteroids prior to their ED visit. Eighty percent of parents identified upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) as the primary trigger for their child’s asthma. No parent received or implemented any specific asthma strategies to reduce the impact of URTIs; 82% of parents did not receive any printed asthma education materials. Most (66%) parents received verbal instructions on how to manage their child’s future asthma exacerbations. Of those, one-third of families were told to return to the ED. Parents were rarely advised to bring their child to their family doctor in the event of a future exacerbation. At 6 months, parents continued to use the ED services for asthma exacerbations in their children, despite reporting feeling confident in managing their child’s asthma. Conclusion: Improvements are urgently needed in developing strategies to manage pediatric asthma exacerbations related to URTIs, communication with parents at discharge in acute care, and using alternate acute care services for parents who continue to rely on EDs for the initial care of mild asthma exacerbations.

scholarly journals Single session work: Implementing brief intervention as routine practice in an acute care mental health assessment service.

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-24
Author(s):  
Jillian Le Gros ◽  
Marianne Wyder ◽  
Vanessa Brunelli
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Brief Intervention ◽  
Care Service ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Single Session ◽  
Mental Health Assessment ◽  
Acute Care Service

Objectives: The study describes the implementation and adaptation of a brief intervention model as routine clinical practice in an acute care service. Methods: An action research process informed the evaluation and design of the intervention. Results: The model’s theoretical framework enhanced clinical practice and benefited consumers, though it was too rigid to be implemented in an acute care setting, so was adapted to suit this environment. Conclusions: This paper highlights the value in realigning practice with fundamental engagement principles to improve practice outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document