What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening.

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

Longitudinal quality of life after sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with early-stage lung cancer are not candidates for lobectomy because of various factors, with treatment options including sublobar resection or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Limited information exists regarding patient-centered outcomes after these treatments. METHODS: Subjects with stage I-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at high risk for lobectomy who underwent treatment with sublobar resection or SBRT were recruited from five medical centers. Quality of life (QOL) was compared with the Short Form 8 (SF-8) for physical and mental health and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) surveys at baseline (pretreatment) and 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment. Propensity score methods were used to control for confounders. RESULTS: Of 337 subjects enrolled before treatment, 63% received SBRT. Among patients undergoing resection, 89% underwent minimally invasive video-assisted thoracic surgery or robot-assisted resection. Adjusted analyses showed that SBRT-treated patients had both higher physical health SF-8 scores (difference in differences [DID], 6.42; p = .0008) and FACT-L scores (DID, 2.47; p = .004) at 7 days posttreatment. Mental health SF-8 scores were not different at 7 days (p = .06). There were no significant differences in QOL at other time points, and all QOL scores returned to baseline by 12 months for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is associated with better QOL immediately posttreatment compared with sublobar resection. However, both treatment groups reported similar QOL at later time points, with a return to baseline QOL. These findings suggest that sublobar resection and SBRT have a similar impact on the QOL of patients with early-stage lung cancer deemed ineligible for lobectomy.

Modeling the impact of novel systemic treatments on lung cancer screening benefits.

BACKGROUND: Since low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening was shown to be effective in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies for advanced lung cancer have become available. This study investigated the impact of these treatment advances on the expected benefits of LDCT screening. METHODS: A microsimulation model of LDCT screening for high-risk individuals under standard systemic treatments (chemotherapy and radiation therapy) and novel treatments (immunotherapy and targeted therapy) was used. The model assumed a reduction in advanced-stage disease consistent with the NLST, and given the stage at diagnosis, it projected survival. The disease-specific relative mortality reduction (MR) due to LDCT screening was projected in the trial setting and in a population eligible for LDCT screening under the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. RESULTS: The availability of novel treatments reduced the MR in the LDCT arm of the NLST from 15% to 13.5% and the number of lung cancer deaths prevented from 310 to 224 per 100,000 persons screened. Over 10 years, population LDCT screening based on USPSTF recommendations prevented 374 lung cancer deaths per 100,000 under standard treatments (13.3% MR) and 236 per 100,000 under fully adopted novel treatments (10.6% MR). The number needed to screen to avert one death over 10 years was 270 under standard treatments and 440 under novel treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from standard systemic treatments to novel treatments is expected to reduce the relative and absolute mortality benefits of LDCT screening. Benefit-harm tradeoffs of LDCT screening are likely to change as novel treatments become widespread.

VA-Delivered or VA-Purchased Care: Important Factors for Veterans Navigating Care Decisions.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The VA MISSION Act aimed to increase Veterans' access to care by allowing eligible Veterans to use VA-paid care from non-VA providers ("VA-purchased care"). We interviewed Veterans who were eligible for both VA-delivered and VA-purchased care to examine factors they consider when making decisions about whether to use VA-delivered or VA-purchased care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 Veterans across the USA who were eligible for VA-delivered and VA-purchased care, using deductive and inductive analysis to develop themes. Participants were recruited from a survey about healthcare access and decision-making. More than half of participants lived in rural areas, 21 were men, and 25 were > 50 years old. KEY RESULTS: Veteran participants identified (1) high-quality relationships with providers based on mutual trust, empathy, authenticity, and continuity of care, and (2) a positive environment or "eco-system of care" characterized by supportive interactions with staff and other Veterans, and exemplary customer service as integral to their decisions about where to receive care. These preferences influenced their engagement with VA and non-VA providers. We discovered corresponding findings related to Veterans' information needs. When making decisions around where to receive care, participants said they would like more information about VA and non-VA providers and services, and about coordination of care and referrals, including understanding processes and implications of utilizing VA-purchased care. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Current VA-purchased care eligibility determinations focus on common access metrics (e.g., wait times, distance to care). Yet, Veterans discussed other important factors for navigating care decisions, including patient-provider relationship quality and the larger healthcare environment (e.g., interactions with staff and other Veterans). Our findings point to the need for health systems to collect and provide information on these aspects of care to ensure care decisions reflect what is important to Veterans when navigating where to receive care.

Relationships among clinicians are crucial to successful palliative care integration: a qualitative study in lung cancer.

Aims: Palliative care integration improves quality of life among patients with lung cancer and their families. Despite these benefits, significant barriers persist and patients do not receive timely integration. This study sought to identify facilitators of and barriers to integration in lung cancer care. Materials & methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with palliative care and lung cancer clinicians and analyzed using traditional content analysis. 23 clinicians were interviewed from geographically dispersed hospitals within a national healthcare system. Results: Palliative care integration improved over time, enhanced by several facilitators stratified at four levels (patient/clinician/hospital/organization). Most important among these was multidisciplinary care delivered in outpatient settings, fostering trust and relationships among clinicians which were pivotal to successful integration. Workforce shortages and limited use of primary palliative care among lung cancer clinicians need to be addressed for continued growth in the field. Conclusion: Relationships among clinicians are crucial to successful palliative care integration in lung cancer care.

Palliative care is a form of supportive care for patients with a serious illness that improves quality of life among patients with lung cancer and their families. Unfortunately, many patients do not receive this care until they are near the end of life. This study sought to explore clinicians' perspectives regarding ways to enhance the use of palliative care among patients with lung cancer. Using interviews of clinicians from geographically dispersed hospitals within a national healthcare system, the authors explored reasons and potential solutions to improve palliative care delivery. One of the most important factors in enhancing palliative care use was fostering trust and relationships among palliative care and lung cancer clinicians. Workforce shortages also need to be addressed for continued growth in the field of palliative care. Relationships among clinicians are crucial to successful palliative care integration in lung cancer care.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Distance to Care, Rural Dwelling Status, and Patterns of Care Utilization in Adult Congenital Heart Disease.

Many patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) do not receive guideline-directed care. While distance to an ACHD center has been identified as a potential barrier to care, the impact of distance on care location is not well understood. The Oregon All Payer All Claims database was queried to identify subjects 18-65 years who had a health encounter from 2010 to 2015 with an International Classification of Diseases-9 code consistent with ACHD. Residence area was classified using metropolitan statistical areas and driving distance was queried from Google Maps. Utilization rates and percentages were calculated and odds ratios were estimated using negative binomial and logistic regression. Of 10,199 identified individuals, 52.4% lived < 1 h from the ACHD center, 37.5% 1-4 h, and 10.1% > 4 h. Increased distance from the ACHD center was associated with a lower rate of ACHD-specific follow-up [< 1 h: 13.0% vs. > 4 h: 5.0%, adjusted OR 0.32 (0.22, 0.48)], but with more inpatient, emergency room, and outpatient visits overall. Those who more lived more than 4 h from the ACHD center had less inpatient visits at urban hospitals (55.5% vs. 93.9% in those < 1 h) and the ACHD center (6.2% vs. 18.2%) and more inpatient admissions at rural or critical access hospitals (25.5% vs. 1.9%). Distance from the ACHD center was associated with a decreased probability of ACHD follow-up but higher health service use overall. Further work is needed to identify strategies to improve access to specialized ACHD care for all individuals with ACHD.

Gender Differences in Authorship of Critical Care Literature.

Rationale: Gender gaps exist in academic leadership positions in critical care. Peer-reviewed publications are crucial to career advancement, and yet little is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research.Objectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature.Methods: We used a validated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed between 2008 and 2018 in 40 frequently cited journals. High-impact journals were defined as those in the top 5% of all journals. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the association of senior author gender with first and middle author gender, as well as association of first author gender with journal impact factor.Measurements and Main Results: Among 18,483 studies, 30.8% had female first authors, and 19.5% had female senior authors. Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average annual increases of 0.44% [P < 0.01] and 0.51% [P < 0.01] for female first and senior authors, respectively). When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially (first author adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.17; middle author aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69). Female first authors had higher odds than men of publishing in lower-impact journals (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45).Conclusions: Women comprise less than one-third of first authors and one-fourth of senior authors of critical care research, with minimal increase over the past decade. When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially. However, female first authors tend to publish in lower-impact journals. These findings may help explain the underrepresentation of women in critical care academic leadership positions and identify targets for improvement.

What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS). OBJECTIVE: We examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs. DESIGN: Multicenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS. APPROACH: We performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist. RESULTS: All clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

The Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With Intensity of Treatment Among Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms are intended to help prevent the provision of unwanted medical interventions among patients with advanced illness or frailty who are approaching the end of life. We seek to evaluate how POLST form completion, treatment limitations, or both influence intensity of treatment among patients who present to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who presented to the ED at an academic medical center in Oregon between April 2015 and October 2016. POLST form completion and treatment limitations were the main exposures. Primary outcome was hospital admission; secondary outcomes included ICU admission and a composite measure of aggressive treatment. RESULTS: A total of 26,128 patients were included; 1,769 (6.8%) had completed POLST forms. Among patients with POLST, 52.1% had full treatment orders, and 6.4% had their forms accessed before admission. POLST form completion was not associated with hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.12), ICU admission (aOR=0.82; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22), or aggressive treatment (aOR=1.06; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.51). Compared with POLST forms with full treatment orders, those with treatment limitations were not associated with hospital admission (aOR=1.12; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.37) or aggressive treatment (aOR=0.87; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.52), but were associated with lower odds of ICU admission (aOR=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.61). CONCLUSION: Among patients presenting to the ED with POLST, the majority of POLST forms had orders for full treatment and were not accessed by emergency providers. These findings may partially explain why we found no association of POLST with treatment intensity. However, treatment limitations on POLST forms were associated with reduced odds of ICU admission. Implementation and accessibility of POLST forms are crucial when considering their effect on the provision of treatment consistent with patients' preferences.

Patient-Physician Discussions on Lung Cancer Screening: A Missed Teachable Moment to Promote Smoking Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in "real world" settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient-physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS. RESULTS: Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

Combining smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening: A systematic review.

Providing smoking cessation treatment with annual low dose CT (LDCT) screening offers an opportunity to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal approach for delivering cessation interventions in the LDCT screening context is unknown. We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group testing a smoking cessation intervention among adults undergoing LDCT screening through May 1, 2018 using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers independently reviewed each study to assess eligibility and extracted information using pre-specified protocols for included studies. Given significant differences in the interventions in each study, meta-analyses for the included studies could not be performed. Of 2513 identified studies, 9 met inclusion criteria. Five of the included studies were randomized controlled trials while 4 were observational studies with a control group. Studies were of varying quality, but overall were of poor to fair quality with significant potential for bias and limited generalizability. Based on the available studies, there was insufficient data to suggest a particular approach to smoking cessation counseling in the LDCT screening setting. While no studies compared combined pharmacotherapy and counseling to counseling alone or compared the various pharmacologic agents, we identified several studies underway investigating new approaches during LDCT screening. The optimal strategy for smoking cessation in patients undergoing LDCT screening remains unclear. Future studies should focus on evaluating effectiveness and implementation of combined counseling and pharmacotherapy to optimize smoking cessation during LDCT screening.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.

Improvements in hospice utilization among patients with advanced-stage lung cancer in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Hospice, a patient-centered care system for those with limited life expectancy, is important for enhancing quality of life and is understudied in integrated health care systems. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 21,860 decedents with advanced-stage lung cancer diagnosed from January 2007 to June 2013 in the national US Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Trends over time, geographic regional variability, and patient and tumor characteristics associated with hospice use and the timing of enrollment were examined. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2013, 70.3% of decedents with advanced-stage lung cancer were enrolled in hospice. Among patients in hospice, 52.9% were enrolled in the last month of life, and 14.7% were enrolled in the last 3 days of life. Hospice enrollment increased (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.07; P < .001), whereas the mean time from the cancer diagnosis to hospice enrollment decreased by 65 days (relative decrease, 32%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; P < .001). Relative decreases in late hospice enrollment were observed in the last month (7%; AOR, 0.98; P = .04) and last 3 days of life (26%; AOR, 0.95; P < .001). The Southeast region of the United States had both the highest rate of hospice enrollment and the lowest rate of late enrollment. Patient sociodemographic and lung cancer characteristics were associated with hospice enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced-stage lung cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System, overall and earlier hospice enrollment increased over time. Considerable regional variability in hospice enrollment and the persistence of late enrollment suggests opportunities for improvement in end-of-life care. Cancer 2018;124:426-33. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The Association of ICU Acuity With Outcomes of Patients at Low Risk of Dying.

OBJECTIVE: Many ICU patients do not require critical care interventions. Whether aggressive care environments increase risks to low-acuity patients is unknown. We evaluated whether ICU acuity was associated with outcomes of low mortality-risk patients. We hypothesized that admission to high-acuity ICUs would be associated with worse outcomes. This hypothesis was based on two possibilities: 1) high-acuity ICUs may have a culture of aggressive therapy that could lead to potentially avoidable complications and 2) high-acuity ICUs may focus attention toward the many sicker patients and away from the fewer low-risk patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three hundred twenty-two ICUs in 199 hospitals in the Philips eICU database between 2010 and 2015. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients at low risk of dying, defined as an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IVa-predicted mortality of 3% or less. EXPOSURE: ICU acuity, defined as the mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa score of all admitted patients in a calendar year, stratified into quartiles. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used generalized estimating equations to test whether ICU acuity is independently associated with a primary outcome of ICU length of stay and secondary outcomes of hospital length of stay, hospital mortality, and discharge destination. The study included 381,997 low-risk patients. Mean ICU and hospital length of stay were 1.8 ± 2.1 and 5.2 ± 5.0 days, respectively. Mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa-predicted hospital mortality was 1.6% ± 0.8%; actual hospital mortality was 0.7%. In adjusted analyses, admission to low-acuity ICUs was associated with worse outcomes compared with higher-acuity ICUs. Specifically, compared with the highest-acuity quartile, ICU length of stay in low-acuity ICUs was increased by 0.24 days; in medium-acuity ICUs by 0.16 days; and in high-acuity ICUs by 0.09 days (all p < 0.001). Similar patterns existed for hospital length of stay. Patients in lower-acuity ICUs had significantly higher hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.10-1.49] for low-; 1.24 [95% CI, 1.07-1.42] for medium-, and 1.14 [95% CI, 0.99-1.31] for high-acuity ICUs) and lower likelihood of discharge home (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.90] for low-, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92] for medium-, and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99] for high-acuity ICUs). CONCLUSIONS: Admission to high-acuity ICUs is associated with better outcomes among low mortality-risk patients. Future research should aim to understand factors that confer benefit to patients with different risk profiles.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH: Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Stakeholder Research Priorities for Smoking Cessation Interventions within Lung Cancer Screening Programs. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

RATIONALE: Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned. RESULTS: There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings. CONCLUSIONS: This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.

Identifying Distinct Subgroups of ICU Patients: A Machine Learning Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying subgroups of ICU patients with similar clinical needs and trajectories may provide a framework for more efficient ICU care through the design of care platforms tailored around patients' shared needs. However, objective methods for identifying these ICU patient subgroups are lacking. We used a machine learning approach to empirically identify ICU patient subgroups through clustering analysis and evaluate whether these groups might represent appropriate targets for care redesign efforts. DESIGN: We performed clustering analysis using data from patients' hospital stays to retrospectively identify patient subgroups from a large, heterogeneous ICU population. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a healthcare delivery system serving 3.9 million members. PATIENTS: ICU patients 18 years old or older with an ICU admission between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, at one of 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used clustering analysis to identify putative clusters among 5,000 patients randomly selected from 24,884 ICU patients. To assess cluster validity, we evaluated the distribution and frequency of patient characteristics and the need for invasive therapies. We then applied a classifier built from the sample cohort to the remaining 19,884 patients to compare the derivation and validation clusters. Clustering analysis successfully identified six clinically recognizable subgroups that differed significantly in all baseline characteristics and clinical trajectories, despite sharing common diagnoses. In the validation cohort, the proportion of patients assigned to each cluster was similar and demonstrated significant differences across clusters for all variables. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning approach revealed important differences between empirically derived subgroups of ICU patients that are not typically revealed by admitting diagnosis or severity of illness alone. Similar data-driven approaches may provide a framework for future organizational innovations in ICU care tailored around patients' shared needs.