Validating claims-based definitions for deprescribing: Bridging the gap between clinical and administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has evaluated the validity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the validity of claims-based definitions of deprescribing against electronic health records (EHRs) for deprescribing of benzodiazepines (BZDs) after a fall-related hospitalization. METHODS: We used a novel data linkage between Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and Part D with our health system's EHR. We identified patients aged ≥66 years with a fall-related hospitalization, continuous enrollment in Medicare FFS and Part D for 6 months pre- and post-hospitalization, and ≥2 BZD fills in the 6 months pre-hospitalization. Using a standardized EHR abstraction tool, we adjudicated deprescribing for a sub-sample with a fall-related hospitalization at UNC. We evaluated the validity of claims-based deprescribing definitions (e.g., gaps in supply, dosage reductions) versus chart review using sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Among 257 patients in the overall sample, 44% were aged 66-74 years, 35% had Medicare low-income subsidy, 79% were female. Among claims-based definitions using gaps in supply, the prevalence of BZD deprescribing ranged from 8.2% (no refills) to 36.6% (30-day gap). When incorporating dosage, the prevalence ranged from 55.3% to 65.8%. Among the validation sub-sample (n = 47), approximately one-third had BZDs deprescribed in the EHR. Compared to EHR, gaps in supply from claims had good sensitivity, but poor specificity. Incorporating dosage increased sensitivity, but worsened specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing of BZDs was low; however, the specificity of a 90-day gap was >90%. Replication in other EHRs and for other low-value medications is needed to guide future deprescribing research.

Evolution of Investigating Informed Assent Discussions about CPR in Seriously Ill Patients.

CONTEXT: Outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain poor. We have spent 10 years investigating an "informed assent" (IA) approach to discussing CPR with chronically ill patients/families. IA is a discussion framework whereby patients extremely unlikely to benefit from CPR are informed that unless they disagree, CPR will not be performed because it will not help achieve their goals, thus removing the burden of decision-making from the patient/family, while they retain an opportunity to disagree. OBJECTIVES: Determine the acceptability and efficacy of IA discussions about CPR with older chronically ill patients/families. METHODS: This multi-site research occurred in three stages. Stage I determined acceptability of the intervention through focus groups of patients with advanced COPD or malignancy, family members, and physicians. Stage II was an ambulatory pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the IA discussion. Stage III is an ongoing phase 2 RCT of IA versus attention control in in patients with advanced chronic illness. RESULTS: Our qualitative work found the IA approach was acceptable to most patients, families, and physicians. The pilot RCT demonstrated feasibility and showed an increase in participants in the intervention group changing from "full code" to "do not resuscitate" within two weeks after the intervention. However, Stages I and II found that IA is best suited to inpatients. Our phase 2 RCT in older hospitalized seriously ill patients is ongoing; results are pending. CONCLUSIONS: IA is a feasible and reasonable approach to CPR discussions in selected patient populations.