Postpartum Emergency Department Use Following Midwifery-Model vs Obstetrics-Model Care.

Importance: Emergency department (ED) use postpartum is a common and often-preventable event. Unlike traditional obstetrics models, the Ontario midwifery model offers early care postpartum. Objective: To assess whether postpartum ED use differs between women who received perinatal care in midwifery-model care vs in traditional obstetrics-model care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study took place in Ontario, Canada, where public health care is universally funded. Participants included women who were low risk and primiparous and gave birth to a live baby in an Ontario hospital between 2012 and 2018. Data were collected from April 2012 to March 2018 and analyzed from June 2022 to April 2023. Exposures: Perinatal care clinician, namely, a midwife or obstetrician. Main Outcome and Measures: : Any unscheduled ED visit 42 days postpartum or less. Poisson regression models compared ED use between women with midwifery-model care vs obstetrics-model care, weighting by propensity score-based overlap weights. Results: Among 104 995 primiparous women aged 11 to 50 years, those in midwifery-model care received a median (IQR) of 7 (6-8) postpartum visits, compared with 0 (0-1) visits among those receiving obstetrics-model care. Unscheduled ED visits 42 days or less postpartum occurred for 1549 of 23 124 women (6.7%) with midwifery-model care compared with 6902 of 81 871 women (8.4%) with traditional obstetrics-model care (adjusted relative risks [aRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83). Similar aRRs were seen in women with a spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.78) or assisted vaginal birth (aRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82) but not those with a cesarean birth (aRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03) or those with intrapartum transfer of care between a midwife and obstetrician (aRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.04). ED use 7 days or less postpartum was also lower among women receiving midwifery model care (aRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, midwifery-model care was associated with less postpartum ED use than traditional obstetrics-model care among women who had low risk and were primiparous, which may be due to early access to postpartum care provided by Ontario midwives.

The role of surgeon specialty in management and survival of malignant ovarian germ cell tumors: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe management and survival in adult patients with malignant ovarian germ cell tumors (MOGCT) undergoing surgery by general gynecologists (GG) versus gynecologic oncologists (GO). METHODS: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study, including patients (age ≥ 18 years old) with MOGCT identified in the provincial cancer registry of Ontario, (1996-2020). Baseline characteristics, surgical and chemotherapy treatment were compared between those with surgery by GG or GO. Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used to determine if surgeon specialty was associated with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 363 patients were included. One-hundred and sixty (44%) underwent surgery by GO and 203 (56%) by GG. There were higher rates of stage II-IV in the GO group (27.5% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001, and higher proportion of chemotherapy (64.4% vs 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Five-year OS was 90% and 93% in the GO vs GG groups, respectively (p = 0.39). CPH model showed factors associated with increased risk of death were older age at diagnosis (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.12) and chemotherapy (HR 3.12, 95% CI 1.44-6.75). Surgeon specialty was not independently associated with all-cause death (HR 1.04, 95% 0.51-2.15, p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of MOGCT, 5-year OS was not significantly different between patients having surgery by GO compared to GG. Nevertheless, survival rates were lower than expected in the GG group despite their low-risk features. Further exploration is warranted regarding the reasons for this and whether patients with suspected MOGCT may benefit from early assessment by GO for optimal management.

Machine Learning to Allocate Palliative Care Consultations During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: For patients with advanced cancer, early consultations with palliative care (PC) specialists reduce costs, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. However, capacity limitations prevent all patients from receiving PC shortly after diagnosis. We evaluated whether a prognostic machine learning system could promote early PC, given existing capacity. METHODS: Using population-level administrative data in Ontario, Canada, we assembled a cohort of patients with incurable cancer who received palliative-intent systemic therapy between July 1, 2014, and December 30, 2019. We developed a machine learning system that predicted death within 1 year of each treatment using demographics, cancer characteristics, treatments, symptoms, laboratory values, and history of acute care admissions. We trained the system in patients who started treatment before July 1, 2017, and evaluated the potential impact of the system on PC in subsequent patients. RESULTS: Among 560,210 treatments received by 54,628 patients, death occurred within 1 year of 45.2% of treatments. The machine learning system recommended the same number of PC consultations observed with usual care at the 60.0% 1-year risk of death, with a first-alarm positive predictive value of 69.7% and an outcome-level sensitivity of 74.9%. Compared with usual care, system-guided care could increase early PC by 8.5% overall (95% CI, 7.5 to 9.5; P < .001) and by 15.3% (95% CI, 13.9 to 16.6; P < .001) among patients who live 6 months beyond their first treatment, without requiring more PC consultations in total or substantially increasing PC among patients with a prognosis exceeding 2 years. CONCLUSION: Prognostic machine learning systems could increase early PC despite existing resource constraints. These results demonstrate an urgent need to deploy and evaluate prognostic systems in real-time clinical practice to increase access to early PC.

Machine Learning-Based Early Warning Systems for Acute Care Utilization During Systemic Therapy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations frequently occur during systemic therapy for cancer. We developed and evaluated a longitudinal warning system for acute care use. METHODS: Using a retrospective population-based cohort of patients who started intravenous systemic therapy for nonhematologic cancers between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020, we randomly separated patients into cohorts for model training, hyperparameter tuning and model selection, and system testing. Predictive features included static features, such as demographics, cancer type, and treatment regimens, and dynamic features, such as patient-reported symptoms and laboratory values. The longitudinal warning system predicted the probability of acute care utilization within 30 days after each treatment session. Machine learning systems were developed in the training and tuning cohorts and evaluated in the testing cohort. Sensitivity analyses considered feature importance, other acute care endpoints, and performance within subgroups. RESULTS: The cohort included 105,129 patients who received 1,216,385 treatment sessions. Acute care followed 182,444 (15.0%) treatments within 30 days. The ensemble model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.739-0.745) and was well calibrated in the test cohort. Important predictive features included prior acute care use, treatment regimen, and laboratory tests. If the system was set to alarm approximately once every 15 treatments, 25.5% of acute care events would be preceded by an alarm, and 47.4% of patients would experience acute care after an alarm. The system underestimated risk for some treatment regimens and potentially underserved populations such as females and non-English speakers. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning warning systems can detect patients at risk for acute care utilization, which can aid in preventive intervention and facilitate tailored treatment. Future research should address potential biases and prospectively evaluate impact after system deployment.