Impact of Augmented Intelligence on Utilization of Palliative Care Services in a Real-World Oncology Setting

Creating a Learning Health System in a Cancer Center: Generalizability of an Electronic Health Record Phenotype for Advanced Solid Cancer

PURPOSE

To test the generalizability of an electronic health record (EHR) phenotype for patients with advanced solid cancer, which was previously developed in a single cancer center.

METHODS

We compared an algorithm to identify patients with advanced solid cancer from a random sample of patients with active cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and an academic cancer center with a human-coded reference standard between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019.

RESULTS

Compared with the human-coded reference standard, the algorithm had high specificity (93%; 95% CI, 87 to 99 and 97%; 95% CI, 93 to 100) and reasonable sensitivity (85%; 95% CI, 76 to 94 and 87%; 95% CI, 77 to 97) in the VA and academic cancer center populations, respectively. Patients with advanced cancer (compared with those with active nonadvanced cancer) had higher mortality at the VA and academic cancer center (29.2% and 17.0% 6-month mortality v 6.8% and 3.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This EHR phenotype can be used to measure and improve the quality of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer within and across health care settings.

Reducing Avoidable Emergency Visits and Hospitalizations With Patient Risk-Based Prescriptive Analytics: A Quality Improvement Project at an Oncology Care Model Practice

PURPOSE

Cancer-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations that would have been appropriately managed in the outpatient setting are avoidable and detrimental to patients and health systems. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to leverage patient risk-based prescriptive analytics at a community oncology practice to reduce avoidable acute care use (ACU).

METHODS

Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology, we implemented the Jvion Care Optimization and Recommendation Enhancement augmented intelligence (AI) tool at an Oncology Care Model (OCM) practice, the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders practice. We applied continuous machine learning to predict risk of preventable harm (avoidable ACU) and generated patient-specific recommendations that nurses implemented to avert it.

RESULTS

Patient-centric interventions included medication/dosage changes, laboratory tests/imaging, physical/occupational/psychologic therapy referral, palliative care/hospice referral, and surveillance/observation. Nurses contacted patients every 1-2 weeks after initial outreach to assess and maintain adherence to recommended interventions. Per 100 unique OCM patients, monthly ED visits dropped from 13.7 to 11.5 (18%), a sustained month-over-month improvement. Quarterly admissions dropped from 19.5 to 17.1 (13%), a sustained quarter-over-quarter improvement. Overall, the practice realized potential annual savings of $2.8 million US dollars (USD) on avoidable ACU.

CONCLUSION

The AI tool has enabled nurse case managers to identify and resolve critical clinical issues and reduce avoidable ACU. Effects on outcomes can be inferred from the reduction; targeting short-term interventions toward patients most at-risk translates to better long-term care and outcomes. QI projects involving predictive modeling of patient risk, prescriptive analytics, and nurse outreach may reduce ACU.

Advanced Care Planning for Hospitalized Patients Following Clinician Notification of Patient Mortality by a Machine Learning Algorithm

Importance

Goal-concordant care is an ongoing challenge in hospital settings. Identification of high mortality risk within 30 days may call attention to the need to have serious illness conversations, including the documentation of patient goals of care.

Objective

To examine goals of care discussions (GOCDs) in a community hospital setting with patients identified as having a high risk of mortality by a machine learning mortality prediction algorithm.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study took place at community hospitals within 1 health care system. Participants included adult patients with a high risk of 30-day mortality who were admitted to 1 of 4 hospitals between January 2 and July 15, 2021. Patient encounters of inpatients in the intervention hospital where physicians were notified of the computed high risk mortality score were compared with patient encounters of inpatients in 3 community hospitals without the intervention (ie, matched control).

Intervention

Physicians of patients with a high risk of mortality within 30 days received notification and were encouraged to arrange for GOCDs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the percentage change of documented GOCDs prior to discharge. Propensity-score matching was completed on a preintervention and postintervention period using age, sex, race, COVID-19 status, and machine learning-predicted mortality risk scores. A difference-in-difference analysis validated the results.

Results

Overall, 537 patients were included in this study with 201 in the preintervention period (94 in the intervention group; 104 in the control group) and 336 patients in the postintervention period. The intervention and control groups included 168 patients per group and were well-balanced in age (mean [SD], 79.3 [9.60] vs 79.6 [9.21] years; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.03), sex (female, 85 [51%] vs 85 [51%]; SMD, 0), race (White patients, 145 [86%] vs 144 [86%]; SMD 0.006), and Charlson comorbidities (median [range], 8.00 [2.00-15.0] vs 9.00 [2.00 to 19.0]; SMD, 0.34). Patients in the intervention group from preintervention to postintervention period were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs (OR, 5.11 [95% CI, 1.93 to 13.42]; P = .001) by discharge compared with matched controls, and GOCD occurred significantly earlier in the hospitalization in the intervention patients as compared with matched controls (median, 4 [95% CI, 3 to 6] days vs 16 [95% CI, 15 to not applicable] days; P < .001). Similar findings were observed for Black patient and White patient subgroups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, patients whose physicians had knowledge of high-risk predictions from machine learning mortality algorithms were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs than matched controls. Additional external validation is needed to determine if similar interventions would be helpful at other institutions.

Oncologist Perceptions of Algorithm-Based Nudges to Prompt Early Serious Illness Communication: A Qualitative Study

Background: Early serious illness conversations (SICs) about goals of care and prognosis improve mood, quality of life, and end-of-life care quality. Algorithm-based behavioral nudges to oncologists increase the frequency and timeliness of such conversations. However, clinicians' perspectives on such nudges are unknown. Design: Qualitative study consisting of semistructured interviews among medical oncology clinicians who participated in a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of Conversation Connect, an algorithm-based intervention consisting of behavioral nudges to promote early SICs in the outpatient oncology setting. Results: Of 79 eligible oncology clinicians, 56 (71%) were approached to participate in interviews and 25 (45%) accepted. Key facilitators to algorithm-based nudges included prompting documentation of conversations, peer comparisons, performance reports, and validating norms around early conversations. Barriers included cancer-specific heterogeneity in algorithm performance and the frequency and tone of text messages. Areas of improvement included utilizing different information channels, identifying patients earlier in the disease trajectory, and incorporating patient-targeted messaging that emphasizes the value of early conversations. Conclusions: Oncology clinicians identified key facilitators and barriers to Conversation Connect. These insights inform future algorithm-based supportive care interventions in oncology. Controlled trial (NCT03984773).

Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors

Importance

To date, oncologist and model prognostic performance have been assessed independently and mostly retrospectively; however, how model prognostic performance compares with oncologist prognostic performance prospectively remains unknown.

Objective

To compare oncologist performance with a model in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with metastatic solid tumors in an outpatient setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prognostic study evaluated prospective predictions for a cohort of patients with metastatic solid tumors seen in outpatient oncology clinics at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and associated satellites between December 6, 2019, and August 6, 2021. Oncologists (57 physicians and 17 advanced practice clinicians) answered a 3-month surprise question (3MSQ) within clinical pathways. A model was trained with electronic health record data from January 1, 2013, to April 24, 2019, to identify patients at high risk of 3-month mortality and deployed silently in October 2019. Analysis was limited to oncologist prognostications with a model prediction within the preceding 30 days.

Exposures

Three-month surprise question and gradient-boosting binary classifier.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was performance comparison between oncologists and the model to predict 3-month mortality. The primary performance metric was the positive predictive value (PPV) at the sensitivity achieved by the medical oncologists with their 3MSQ answers.

Results

A total of 74 oncologists answered 3099 3MSQs for 2041 patients with advanced cancer (median age, 62.6 [range, 18-96] years; 1271 women [62.3%]). In this cohort with a 15% prevalence of 3-month mortality and 30% sensitivity for both oncologists and the model, the PPV of oncologists was 34.8% (95% CI, 30.1%-39.5%) and the PPV of the model was 60.0% (95% CI, 53.6%-66.3%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 81.2% (95% CI, 79.1%-83.3%). The model significantly outperformed the oncologists in short-term mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prognostic study, the model outperformed oncologists overall and within the breast and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with advanced cancer. These findings suggest that further studies may be useful to examine how model predictions could improve oncologists' prognostic confidence and patient-centered goal-concordant care at the end of life.

Impact of social determinants of health on cancer care: a survey of community oncologists

OBJECTIVE

Cancer survival rates have improved over the past few decades, yet socioeconomic disparities persist. Social determinants of health (SDOH) have consistently been shown to correlate with health outcomes. The objective of this study was to characterise oncologists' perceptions of the impact of SDOH on their patients, and their opinions on how these effects could be remediated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of physicians.

SETTING

Web-based survey completed prior to live meetings held between February and April 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Oncologists/haematologists from across the USA.

EXPOSURE

Clinical practice in a community-based or hospital-based setting.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

Physician responses regarding how SDOH affected their patients, which factors represented the most significant barriers to optimal health outcomes and how the impact of SDOH could be mitigated through assistance programmes.

RESULTS

Of the 165 physicians who completed the survey, 93% agreed that SDOH had a significant impact on their patients' health outcomes. Financial security/lack of insurance and access to transportation were identified most often as the greatest barriers for their patients (83% and 58%, respectively). Eighty-one per cent of physicians indicated that they and their staff had limited time to spend assisting patients with social needs, and 76% reported that assistance programmes were not readily accessible. Government organisations, hospitals, non-profit organisations and commercial payers were selected by 50% or more of oncologists surveyed as who should be responsible for delivering assistance programmes to patients with social needs; 42% indicated that pharmaceutical manufacturers should also be responsible.

CONCLUSION

Our survey found that most oncologists were aware of the impact of SDOH on their patients but were constrained in their time to assist patients with social needs. The physicians in our study identified a need for more accessible assistance programmes and greater involvement from all stakeholders in addressing SDOH to improve health outcomes.