Supplementing systematic review findings with healthcare system data: pilot projects from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center program.

OBJECTIVES: The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, through the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program, aims to provide health system decision makers with the highest-quality evidence to inform clinical decisions. However, limitations in the literature may lead to inconclusive findings in EPC systematic reviews (SRs). The EPC Program conducted pilot projects to understand the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of utilizing health system data to augment SR findings to support confidence in healthcare decision-making based on real-world experiences. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Three contractors (each an EPC located at a different health system) selected a recently completed SR conducted by their center and identified an evidence gap that electronic health record (EHR) data might address. All pilot project topics addressed clinical questions as opposed to care delivery, care organization, or care disparities topics that are common in EPC reports. Topic areas addressed by each EPC included infantile epilepsy, migraine, and hip fracture. EPCs also tracked additional resources needed to conduct supplemental analyses. The workgroup met monthly in 2022-2023 to discuss challenges and lessons learned from the pilot projects. RESULTS: Two supplemental data analyses filled an evidence gap identified in the SRs (raised certainty of evidence, improved applicability) and the third filled a health system knowledge gap. Project challenges fell under three themes: regulatory and logistical issues, data collection and analysis, and interpretation and presentation of findings. Limited ability to capture key clinical variables given inconsistent or missing data within the EHR was a major limitation. The workgroup found that conducting supplemental data analysis alongside an SR was feasible but adds considerable time and resources to the review process (estimated total hours to complete pilot projects ranged from 283 to 595 across EPCs), and that the increased effort and resources added limited incremental value. CONCLUSION: Supplementing existing SRs with analyses of EHR data is resource intensive and requires specialized skillsets throughout the process. While using EHR data for research has immense potential to generate real-world evidence and fill knowledge gaps, these data may not yet be ready for routine use alongside SRs.

COVID-19 Admission Rates and Changes in Care Quality in US Hospitals.

Importance: Unprecedented increases in hospital occupancy rates during COVID-19 surges in 2020 caused concern over hospital care quality for patients without COVID-19. Objective: To examine changes in hospital nonsurgical care quality for patients without COVID-19 during periods of high and low COVID-19 admissions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 and 2020 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases. Data were obtained for all nonfederal, acute care hospitals in 36 states with admissions in 2019 and 2020, and patients without a diagnosis of COVID-19 or pneumonia who were at risk for selected quality indicators were included. The data analysis was performed between January 1, 2023, and March 15, 2024. Exposure: Each hospital and week in 2020 was categorized based on the number of COVID-19 admissions per 100 beds: less than 1.0, 1.0 to 4.9, 5.0 to 9.9, 10.0 to 14.9, and 15.0 or greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were rates of adverse outcomes for selected quality indicators, including pressure ulcers and in-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, hip fracture, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Changes in 2020 compared with 2019 were calculated for each level of the weekly COVID-19 admission rate, adjusting for case-mix and hospital-month fixed effects. Changes during weeks with high COVID-19 admissions (≥15 per 100 beds) were compared with changes during weeks with low COVID-19 admissions (<1 per 100 beds). Results: The analysis included 19 111 629 discharges (50.3% female; mean [SD] age, 63.0 [18.0] years) from 3283 hospitals in 36 states. In weeks 18 to 48 of 2020, 35 851 hospital-weeks (36.7%) had low COVID-19 admission rates, and 8094 (8.3%) had high rates. Quality indicators for patients without COVID-19 significantly worsened in 2020 during weeks with high vs low COVID-19 admissions. Pressure ulcer rates increased by 0.09 per 1000 admissions (95% CI, 0.01-0.17 per 1000 admissions; relative change, 24.3%), heart failure mortality increased by 0.40 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 0.18-0.63 per 100 admissions; relative change, 21.1%), hip fracture mortality increased by 0.40 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 0.04-0.77 per 100 admissions; relative change, 29.4%), and a weighted mean of mortality for the selected indicators increased by 0.30 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 0.14-0.45 per 100 admissions; relative change, 10.6%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, COVID-19 surges were associated with declines in hospital quality, highlighting the importance of identifying and implementing strategies to maintain care quality during periods of high hospital use.

Guiding Principles to Address the Impact of Algorithm Bias on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care.

Importance: Health care algorithms are used for diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, risk stratification, and allocation of resources. Bias in the development and use of algorithms can lead to worse outcomes for racial and ethnic minoritized groups and other historically marginalized populations such as individuals with lower income. Objective: To provide a conceptual framework and guiding principles for mitigating and preventing bias in health care algorithms to promote health and health care equity. Evidence Review: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities convened a diverse panel of experts to review evidence, hear from stakeholders, and receive community feedback. Findings: The panel developed a conceptual framework to apply guiding principles across an algorithm's life cycle, centering health and health care equity for patients and communities as the goal, within the wider context of structural racism and discrimination. Multiple stakeholders can mitigate and prevent bias at each phase of the algorithm life cycle, including problem formulation (phase 1); data selection, assessment, and management (phase 2); algorithm development, training, and validation (phase 3); deployment and integration of algorithms in intended settings (phase 4); and algorithm monitoring, maintenance, updating, or deimplementation (phase 5). Five principles should guide these efforts: (1) promote health and health care equity during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle; (2) ensure health care algorithms and their use are transparent and explainable; (3) authentically engage patients and communities during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle and earn trustworthiness; (4) explicitly identify health care algorithmic fairness issues and trade-offs; and (5) establish accountability for equity and fairness in outcomes from health care algorithms. Conclusions and Relevance: Multiple stakeholders must partner to create systems, processes, regulations, incentives, standards, and policies to mitigate and prevent algorithmic bias. Reforms should implement guiding principles that support promotion of health and health care equity in all phases of the algorithm life cycle as well as transparency and explainability, authentic community engagement and ethical partnerships, explicit identification of fairness issues and trade-offs, and accountability for equity and fairness.

Clinician Trust in Artificial Intelligence: What is Known and How Trust Can Be Facilitated.

Predictive analytics based on artificial intelligence (AI) offer clinicians the opportunity to leverage big data available in electronic health records (EHR) to improve clinical decision-making, and thus patient outcomes. Despite this, many barriers exist to facilitating trust between clinicians and AI-based tools, limiting its current impact. Potential solutions are available at both the local and national level. It will take a broad and diverse coalition of stakeholders, from health-care systems, EHR vendors, and clinical educators to regulators, researchers and the patient community, to help facilitate this trust so that the promise of AI in health care can be realized.

Awareness of Racial and Ethnic Bias and Potential Solutions to Address Bias With Use of Health Care Algorithms.

Importance: Algorithms are commonly incorporated into health care decision tools used by health systems and payers and thus affect quality of care, access, and health outcomes. Some algorithms include a patient's race or ethnicity among their inputs and can lead clinicians and decision-makers to make choices that vary by race and potentially affect inequities. Objective: To inform an evidence review on the use of race- and ethnicity-based algorithms in health care by gathering public and stakeholder perspectives about the repercussions of and efforts to address algorithm-related bias. Design, Setting, and Participants: Qualitative methods were used to analyze responses. Responses were initially open coded and then consolidated to create a codebook, with themes and subthemes identified and finalized by consensus. This qualitative study was conducted from May 4, 2021, through December 7, 2022. Forty-two organization representatives (eg, clinical professional societies, universities, government agencies, payers, and health technology organizations) and individuals responded to the request for information. Main Outcomes and Measures: Identification of algorithms with the potential for race- and ethnicity-based biases and qualitative themes. Results: Forty-two respondents identified 18 algorithms currently in use with the potential for bias, including, for example, the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation risk prediction tool and the risk calculator for vaginal birth after cesarean section. The 7 qualitative themes, with 31 subthemes, included the following: (1) algorithms are in widespread use and have significant repercussions, (2) bias can result from algorithms whether or not they explicitly include race, (3) clinicians and patients are often unaware of the use of algorithms and potential for bias, (4) race is a social construct used as a proxy for clinical variables, (5) there is a lack of standardization in how race and social determinants of health are collected and defined, (6) bias can be introduced at all stages of algorithm development, and (7) algorithms should be discussed as part of shared decision-making between the patient and clinician. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found that participants perceived widespread and increasing use of algorithms in health care and lack of oversight, potentially exacerbating racial and ethnic inequities. Increasing awareness for clinicians and patients and standardized, transparent approaches for algorithm development and implementation may be needed to address racial and ethnic biases related to algorithms.

Assessing the confidence, knowledge and learning preferences of healthcare workers regarding personal protective equipment use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

We surveyed healthcare workers at an urban academic hospital in the United States about their confidence in and knowledge of appropriate personal protective equipment use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Among 461 respondents, most were confident and knowledgeable about use. Prescribers or nurses and those extremely confident about use were also the most knowledgeable.

Use of clinical pathways integrated into the electronic health record to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required healthcare systems to meet new demands for rapid information dissemination, resource allocation, and data reporting. To help address these challenges, our institution leveraged electronic health record (EHR)-integrated clinical pathways (E-ICPs), which are easily understood care algorithms accessible at the point of care. OBJECTIVE: To describe our institution's creation of E-ICPs to address the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess the use and impact of these tools. SETTING: Urban academic medical center with adult and pediatric hospitals, emergency departments, and ambulatory practices. METHODS: Using the E-ICP processes and infrastructure established at our institution as a foundation, we developed a suite of COVID-19-specific E-ICPs along with a process for frequent reassessment and updating. We examined the development and use of our COVID-19-specific pathways for a 6-month period (March 1-September 1, 2020), and we have described their impact using case studies. RESULTS: In total, 45 COVID-19-specific pathways were developed, pertaining to triage, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19 in diverse patient settings. Orders available in E-ICPs included those for isolation precautions, testing, treatments, admissions, and transfers. Pathways were accessed 86,400 times, with 99,081 individual orders were placed. Case studies demonstrate the impact of COVID-19 E-ICPs on stewardship of resources, testing optimization, and data reporting. CONCLUSIONS: E-ICPs provide a flexible and unified mechanism to meet the evolving demands of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they continue to be a critical tool leveraged by clinicians and hospital administrators alike for the management of COVID-19. Lessons learned may be generalizable to other urgent and nonurgent clinical conditions.

From precision medicine to precision care: Choosing and using precision medicine in the context of multimorbidity.

Rapid advances in precision medicine promise dramatic reductions in morbidity and mortality for a growing array of conditions. To realize the benefits of precision medicine and minimize harm, it is necessary to address real-world challenges encountered in translating this research into practice. Foremost among these is how to choose and use precision medicine modalities in real-world practice by addressing issues related to caring for the sizable proportion of people living with multimorbidity. Precision medicine needs to be delivered in the broader context of precision care to account for factors that influence outcomes for specific therapeutics. Precision care integrates a person-centered approach with precision medicine to inform decision making and care planning by taking multimorbidity, functional status, values, goals, preferences, social and societal context into account. Designing dissemination and implementation of precision medicine around precision care would improve person-centered quality and outcomes of care, target interventions to those most likely to benefit thereby improving access to new therapeutics, minimize the risk of withdrawal from the market from unanticipated harms of therapy, and advance health equity by tailoring interventions and care to meet the needs of diverse individuals and populations. Precision medicine delivered in the context of precision care would foster respectful care aligned with preferences, values, and goals, engendering trust, and providing needed information to make informed decisions. Accelerating adoption requires attention to the full continuum of translational research: developing new approaches, demonstrating their usefulness, disseminating and implementing findings, while engaging patients throughout the process. This encompasses basic science, preclinical and clinical research and implementation into practice, ultimately improving health. This article examines challenges to the adoption of precision medicine in the context of multimorbidity. Although the potential of precision medicine is enormous, proactive efforts are needed to avoid unintended consequences and foster its equitable and effective adoption.