A Machine Learning Application to Classify Patients at Differing Levels of Risk of Opioid Use Disorder: Clinician-Based Validation Study.

Background: Despite restrictive opioid management guidelines, opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a major public health concern. Machine learning (ML) offers a promising avenue for identifying and alerting clinicians about OUD, thus supporting better clinical decision-making regarding treatment. Objective: This study aimed to assess the clinical validity of an ML application designed to identify and alert clinicians of different levels of OUD risk by comparing it to a structured review of medical records by clinicians. Methods: The ML application generated OUD risk alerts on outpatient data for 649,504 patients from 2 medical centers between 2010 and 2013. A random sample of 60 patients was selected from 3 OUD risk level categories (n=180). An OUD risk classification scheme and standardized data extraction tool were developed to evaluate the validity of the alerts. Clinicians independently conducted a systematic and structured review of medical records and reached a consensus on a patient's OUD risk level, which was then compared to the ML application's risk assignments. Results: A total of 78,587 patients without cancer with at least 1 opioid prescription were identified as follows: not high risk (n=50,405, 64.1%), high risk (n=16,636, 21.2%), and suspected OUD or OUD (n=11,546, 14.7%). The sample of 180 patients was representative of the total population in terms of age, sex, and race. The interrater reliability between the ML application and clinicians had a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.71), indicating good agreement. Combining the high risk and suspected OUD or OUD categories and using the review of medical records as a gold standard, the ML application had a corrected sensitivity of 56.6% (95% CI 48.7%-64.5%) and a corrected specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.3%-98.1%). The positive and negative predictive values were 93.3% (95% CI 88.2%-96.3%) and 60.0% (95% CI 50.4%-68.9%), respectively. Key themes for disagreements between the ML application and clinician reviews were identified. Conclusions: A systematic comparison was conducted between an ML application and clinicians for identifying OUD risk. The ML application generated clinically valid and useful alerts about patients' different OUD risk levels. ML applications hold promise for identifying patients at differing levels of OUD risk and will likely complement traditional rule-based approaches to generating alerts about opioid safety issues.

Patient Safety Indicators During the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Surge in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to inpatient safety. It is unknown whether there were spillover effects due to COVID-19 into non-COVID-19 care and safety. We sought to evaluate the changes in inpatient Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators (PSIs) in the United States before and during the first surge of the pandemic among patients admitted without COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed trends in PSIs from January 2019 to June 2020 in patients without COVID-19 using data from IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. We included members of employer-sponsored or Medicare supplemental health plans with inpatient, non-COVID-19 admissions. The primary outcomes were risk-adjusted composite and individual PSIs. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,869,430 patients admitted without COVID-19. Among patients without COVID-19, the composite PSI score was not significantly different when comparing the first surge (Q2 2020) to the prepandemic period (e.g., Q2 2020 score of 2.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.34-2.58] versus Q1 2020 score of 2.37 [95% CI, 2.27-2.46]; P = 0.22). Individual PSIs for these patients during Q2 2020 were also not significantly different, except in-hospital fall with hip fracture (e.g., Q2 2020 was 3.42 [95% CI, 3.34-3.49] versus Q4 2019 was 2.45 [95% CI, 2.40-2.50]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The first surge of COVID-19 was not associated with worse inpatient safety for patients without COVID-19, highlighting the ability of the healthcare system to respond to the initial surge of the pandemic.

The Association of the First Surge of the COVID-19 Pandemic with the High- and Low-Value Outpatient Care Delivered to Adults in the USA.

BACKGROUND: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic entirely altered healthcare delivery. Whether this also altered the receipt of high- and low-value care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test the association between the April through June 2020 surge of COVID-19 and various high- and low-value care measures to determine how the delivery of care changed. DESIGN: Difference in differences analysis, examining the difference in quality measures between the April through June 2020 surge quarter and the January through March 2020 quarter with the same 2 quarters' difference the year prior. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in the MarketScan® Commercial Database and Medicare Supplemental Database. MAIN MEASURES: Fifteen low-value and 16 high-value quality measures aggregated into 8 clinical quality composites (4 of these low-value). KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 9,352,569 adults. Mean age was 44 years (SD, 15.03), 52% were female, and 75% were employed. Receipt of nearly every type of low-value care decreased during the surge. For example, low-value cancer screening decreased 0.86% (95% CI, -1.03 to -0.69). Use of opioid medications for back and neck pain (DiD +0.94 [95% CI, +0.82 to +1.07]) and use of opioid medications for headache (DiD +0.38 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69]) were the only two measures to increase. Nearly all high-value care measures also decreased. For example, high-value diabetes care decreased 9.75% (95% CI, -10.79 to -8.71). CONCLUSIONS: The first COVID-19 surge was associated with receipt of less low-value care and substantially less high-value care for most measures, with the notable exception of increases in low-value opioid use.

World Heart Federation Policy Brief: Front-Of-Pack Labelling: Unhealthy Changes in the Global Food System.

On World Food Day, the World Heart Federation calls on governments to implement mandatory front-of-pack food labels. The World Heart Federation (WHF) has developed a new policy brief on front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) aimed at improving global standards on nutrition and creating healthy food environments. Poor diet is responsible for more deaths worldwide than any other risk factor, and is a leading cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Global estimates suggest that almost 2.3 billion children and adults are overweight. The growing availability of ultra-processed foods, which contain high levels of sugars, sodium, saturated fats and refined carbohydrates, is a key contributor to the current obesity epidemic, which is increasingly impacting low- and middle-income countries. The WHF Front-of-Pack Labelling Policy Brief highlights front-of-pack labelling as a way to create environments where consumers are able to make better informed, healthier food choices for themselves and their families. Currently, a wide variety of front-of-pack labelling systems have been implemented by governments and food manufacturers around the world, with varying levels of success. The new WHF Policy Brief provides evidence-based, practical guidance that can be adapted to local contexts. It highlights that in order the be implemented successfully, FOPL systems must take into account consumer literacy and prevailing cultural norms around food and nutrition. FOPL must be mandatory, government-led, and accompanied by broad public nutrition education initiatives. The WHF Policy Brief includes a set of policy recommendations to give governments the tools they need to select the FOPL system that will best meet the needs of their populations, including recommendations on how to develop an effective FOPL programme, how to implement it successfully, and how to monitor and evaluate outcomes.