Classification of Documented Goals of Care Among Hospitalized Patients with High Mortality Risk: a Mixed-Methods Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: The ability to classify patients' goals of care (GOC) from clinical documentation would facilitate serious illness communication quality improvement efforts and pragmatic measurement of goal-concordant care. Feasibility of this approach remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of classifying patients' GOC from clinical documentation in the electronic health record (EHR), describe the frequency and patterns of changes in patients' goals over time, and identify barriers to reliable goal classification. DESIGN: Retrospective, mixed-methods chart review study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with high (50-74%) and very high (≥ 75%) 6-month mortality risk admitted to three urban hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Two physician coders independently reviewed EHR notes from 6 months before through 6 months after admission to identify documented GOC discussions and classify GOC. GOC were classified into one of four prespecified categories: (1) comfort-focused, (2) maintain or improve function, (3) life extension, or (4) unclear. Coder interrater reliability was assessed using kappa statistics. Barriers to classifying GOC were assessed using qualitative content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Among 85 of 109 (78%) patients, 338 GOC discussions were documented. Inter-rater reliability was substantial (75% interrater agreement; Cohen's kappa = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.73). Patients' initial documented goal was most frequently "life extension" (N = 37, 44%), followed by "maintain or improve function" (N = 28, 33%), "unclear" (N = 17, 20%), and "comfort-focused" (N = 3, 4%). Among the 66 patients whose goals' classification changed over time, most changed to "comfort-focused" goals (N = 49, 74%). Primary reasons for unclear goals were the observation of concurrently held or conditional goals, patient and family uncertainty, and limited documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical notes in the EHR can be used to reliably classify patients' GOC into discrete, clinically germane categories. This work motivates future research to use natural language models to promote scalability of the approach in clinical care and serious illness research.

A Data-Driven Analysis of Ward Capacity Strain Metrics That Predict Clinical Outcomes Among Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure.

Supply-demand mismatch of ward resources ("ward capacity strain") alters care and outcomes. Narrow strain definitions and heterogeneous populations limit strain literature. Evaluate the predictive utility of a large set of candidate strain variables for in-hospital mortality and discharge destination among acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors. In a retrospective cohort of ARF survivors transferred from intensive care units (ICUs) to wards in five hospitals from 4/2017-12/2019, we applied 11 machine learning (ML) models to identify ward strain measures during the first 24 hours after transfer most predictive of outcomes. Measures spanned patient volume (census, admissions, discharges), staff workload (medications administered, off-ward transports, transfusions, isolation precautions, patients per respiratory therapist and nurse), and average patient acuity (Laboratory Acute Physiology Score version 2, ICU transfers) domains. The cohort included 5,052 visits in 43 wards. Median age was 65 years (IQR 56-73); 2,865 (57%) were male; and 2,865 (57%) were white. 770 (15%) patients died in the hospital or had hospice discharges, and 2,628 (61%) were discharged home and 964 (23%) to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Ward admissions, isolation precautions, and hospital admissions most consistently predicted in-hospital mortality across ML models. Patients per nurse most consistently predicted discharge to home and SNF, and medications administered predicted SNF discharge. In this hypothesis-generating analysis of candidate ward strain variables' prediction of outcomes among ARF survivors, several variables emerged as consistently predictive of key outcomes across ML models. These findings suggest targets for future inferential studies to elucidate mechanisms of ward strain's adverse effects.

Prediction of In-hospital Mortality Among Intensive Care Unit Patients Using Modified Daily Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, Version 2.

BACKGROUND: Mortality prediction for intensive care unit (ICU) patients frequently relies on single ICU admission acuity measures without accounting for subsequent clinical changes. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate novel models incorporating modified admission and daily, time-updating Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, version 2 (LAPS2) to predict in-hospital mortality among ICU patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: ICU patients in 5 hospitals from October 2017 through September 2019. MEASURES: We used logistic regression, penalized logistic regression, and random forest models to predict in-hospital mortality within 30 days of ICU admission using admission LAPS2 alone in patient-level and patient-day-level models, or admission and daily LAPS2 at the patient-day level. Multivariable models included patient and admission characteristics. We performed internal-external validation using 4 hospitals for training and the fifth for validation, repeating analyses for each hospital as the validation set. We assessed performance using scaled Brier scores (SBS), c -statistics, and calibration plots. RESULTS: The cohort included 13,993 patients and 107,699 ICU days. Across validation hospitals, patient-day-level models including daily LAPS2 (SBS: 0.119-0.235; c -statistic: 0.772-0.878) consistently outperformed models with admission LAPS2 alone in patient-level (SBS: 0.109-0.175; c -statistic: 0.768-0.867) and patient-day-level (SBS: 0.064-0.153; c -statistic: 0.714-0.861) models. Across all predicted mortalities, daily models were better calibrated than models with admission LAPS2 alone. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-day-level models incorporating daily, time-updating LAPS2 to predict mortality among an ICU population performs as well or better than models incorporating modified admission LAPS2 alone. The use of daily LAPS2 may offer an improved tool for clinical prognostication and risk adjustment in research in this population.

Prediction of in-hospital mortality among intensive care unit patients using modified daily Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Scores, version 2 (LAPS2).

Background: Mortality prediction for intensive care unit (ICU) patients frequently relies on single acuity measures based on ICU admission physiology without accounting for subsequent clinical changes. Objectives: Evaluate novel models incorporating modified admission and daily, time-updating Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Scores, version 2 (LAPS2) to predict in-hospital mortality among ICU patients. Research design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: All ICU patients in five hospitals from October 2017 through September 2019. Measures: We used logistic regression, penalized logistic regression, and random forest models to predict in-hospital mortality within 30 days of ICU admission using admission LAPS2 alone in patient-level and patient-day-level models, or admission and daily LAPS2 at the patient-day level. Multivariable models included patient and admission characteristics. We performed internal-external validation using four hospitals for training and the fifth for validation, repeating analyses for each hospital as the validation set. We assessed performance using scaled Brier scores (SBS), c-statistics, and calibration plots. Results: The cohort included 13,993 patients and 120,101 ICU days. The patient-level model including the modified admission LAPS2 without daily LAPS2 had an SBS of 0.175 (95% CI 0.148-0.201) and c-statistic of 0.824 (95% CI 0.808-0.840). Patient-day-level models including daily LAPS2 consistently outperformed models with modified admission LAPS2 alone. Among patients with <50% predicted mortality, daily models were better calibrated than models with modified admission LAPS2 alone. Conclusions: Models incorporating daily, time-updating LAPS2 to predict mortality among an ICU population perform as well or better than models incorporating modified admission LAPS2 alone.

Associations of Race With Sedation Depth Among Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of race with proportion of time in deep sedation among mechanically ventilated adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from October 2017 to December 2019. SETTING: Five hospitals within a single health system. PATIENTS: Adult patients who identified race as Black or White who were mechanically ventilated for greater than or equal to 24 hours in one of 12 medical, surgical, cardiovascular, cardiothoracic, or mixed ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The exposure was White compared with Black race. The primary outcome was the proportion of time in deep sedation during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale values of -3 to -5. For the primary analysis, we performed mixed-effects linear regression models including ICU as a random effect, and adjusting for age, sex, English as preferred language, body mass index, Elixhauser comorbidity index, Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, Version 2, ICU admission source, admission for a major surgical procedure, and the presence of septic shock. Of the 3337 included patients, 1242 (37%) identified as Black, 1367 (41%) were female, and 1002 (30%) were admitted to a medical ICU. Black patients spent 48% of the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation in deep sedation, compared with 43% among White patients in unadjusted analysis. After risk adjustment, Black race was significantly associated with more time in early deep sedation (mean difference, 5%; 95% CI, 2-7%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There are disparities in sedation during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation between Black and White patients across a diverse set of ICUs. Future work is needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings, given the known poorer outcomes for patients who experience early deep sedation.

Adherence to Lung Protective Ventilation in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Prior studies have demonstrated suboptimal adherence to lung protective ventilation among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. A common barrier to providing this evidence-based practice is diagnostic uncertainty. We sought to test the hypothesis that patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to coronavirus disease 2019, in whom acute respiratory distress syndrome is easily recognized, would be more likely to receive low tidal volume ventilation than concurrently admitted acute respiratory distress syndrome patients without coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Five hospitals of a single health system. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 or noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome as identified by an automated, electronic acute respiratory distress syndrome finder in clinical use at study hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 333 coronavirus disease 2019 patients and 234 noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, the average initial tidal volume was 6.4 cc/kg predicted body weight and 6.8 cc/kg predicted body weight, respectively. Patients had tidal volumes less than or equal to 6.5 cc/kg predicted body weight for a mean of 70% of the first 72 hours of mechanical ventilation in the coronavirus disease 2019 cohort, compared with 52% in the noncoronavirus disease 2019 cohort (unadjusted p < 0.001). After adjusting for height, gender, admitting hospital, and whether or not the patient was admitted to a medical specialty ICU, coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosis was associated with a 21% higher percentage of time receiving tidal volumes less than or equal to 6.5 cc/kg predicted body weight within the first 72 hours of mechanical ventilation (95% CI, 14-28%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to low tidal volume ventilation during the first 72 hours of mechanical ventilation is higher in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 than with acute respiratory distress syndrome without coronavirus disease 2019. This population may present an opportunity to understand facilitators of implementation of this life-saving evidence-based practice.

Implementing nudges to promote utilization of low tidal volume ventilation (INPUT): a stepped-wedge, hybrid type III trial of strategies to improve evidence-based mechanical ventilation management.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral economic insights have yielded strategies to overcome implementation barriers. For example, default strategies and accountable justification strategies have improved adherence to best practices in clinical settings. Embedding such strategies in the electronic health record (EHR) holds promise for simple and scalable approaches to facilitating implementation. A proven-effective but under-utilized treatment for patients who undergo mechanical ventilation involves prescribing low tidal volumes, which protects the lungs from injury. We will evaluate EHR-based implementation strategies grounded in behavioral economic theory to improve evidence-based management of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The Implementing Nudges to Promote Utilization of low Tidal volume ventilation (INPUT) study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, hybrid type III effectiveness implementation trial of three strategies to improve adherence to low tidal volume ventilation. The strategies target clinicians who enter electronic orders and respiratory therapists who manage the mechanical ventilator, two key stakeholder groups. INPUT has five study arms: usual care, a default strategy within the mechanical ventilation order, an accountable justification strategy within the mechanical ventilation order, and each of the order strategies combined with an accountable justification strategy within flowsheet documentation. We will create six matched pairs of twelve intensive care units (ICUs) in five hospitals in one large health system to balance patient volume and baseline adherence to low tidal volume ventilation. We will randomly assign ICUs within each matched pair to one of the order panels, and each pair to one of six wedges, which will determine date of adoption of the order panel strategy. All ICUs will adopt the flowsheet documentation strategy 6 months afterwards. The primary outcome will be fidelity to low tidal volume ventilation. The secondary effectiveness outcomes will include in-hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and occurrence of potential adverse events. DISCUSSION: This stepped-wedge, hybrid type III trial will provide evidence regarding the role of EHR-based behavioral economic strategies to improve adherence to evidence-based practices among patients who undergo mechanical ventilation in ICUs, thereby advancing the field of implementation science, as well as testing the effectiveness of low tidal volume ventilation among broad patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04663802 . Registered 11 December 2020.