Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071421›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Advanced Care Planning for Hospitalized Patients Following Clinician Notification of Patient Mortality by a Machine Learning Algorithm.

Stephen Chi, Seunghwan Kim, Matthew Reuter, Katharine Ponzillo, Debra Parker Oliver, Randi Foraker, Kevin Heard, Jingxia Liu, Kyle Pitzer, Patrick White and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06574672 (Impact of an Embedded Palliative Care and Hospice Practitioner in the Medical ICU), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06574672 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Impact of an Embedded Palliative Care and Hospice Practitioner in the Medical ICU

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2024 to 2027Enrolled2,600ConditionsCritical Illness, End of Life, Quality of LifeArmsEmbedded Hospice and Palliative Care Practitioner, Embedded Hospice and Palliative Care Practitioner (Group Effect), None (Historical)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Rural Hospital Disparities in Goals of Care Documentation.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen ChiDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Seunghwan KimInstitute for Informatics, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Matthew ReuterBJC Medical Group, St Louis, Missouri.
Katharine PonzilloBJC Medical Group, St Louis, Missouri.
Debra Parker OliverDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Randi ForakerInstitute for Informatics, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Kevin HeardBJC Medical Group, St Louis, Missouri.
Jingxia LiuDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Kyle PitzerDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Patrick WhiteDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Nathan MooreBJC Medical Group, St Louis, Missouri.
Washington University in St. Louis · USBJC HealthCare · US

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AIMEE S JAMES · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Goal-concordant care is an ongoing challenge in hospital settings. Identification of high mortality risk within 30 days may call attention to the need to have serious illness conversations, including the documentation of patient goals of care. Objective: To examine goals of care discussions (GOCDs) in a community hospital setting with patients identified as having a high risk of mortality by a machine learning mortality prediction algorithm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study took place at community hospitals within 1 health care system. Participants included adult patients with a high risk of 30-day mortality who were admitted to 1 of 4 hospitals between January 2 and July 15, 2021. Patient encounters of inpatients in the intervention hospital where physicians were notified of the computed high risk mortality score were compared with patient encounters of inpatients in 3 community hospitals without the intervention (ie, matched control). Intervention: Physicians of patients with a high risk of mortality within 30 days received notification and were encouraged to arrange for GOCDs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage change of documented GOCDs prior to discharge. Propensity-score matching was completed on a preintervention and postintervention period using age, sex, race, COVID-19 status, and machine learning-predicted mortality risk scores. A difference-in-difference analysis validated the results. Results: Overall, 537 patients were included in this study with 201 in the preintervention period (94 in the intervention group; 104 in the control group) and 336 patients in the postintervention period. The intervention and control groups included 168 patients per group and were well-balanced in age (mean [SD], 79.3 [9.60] vs 79.6 [9.21] years; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.03), sex (female, 85 [51%] vs 85 [51%]; SMD, 0), race (White patients, 145 [86%] vs 144 [86%]; SMD 0.006), and Charlson comorbidities (median [range], 8.00 [2.00-15.0] vs 9.00 [2.00 to 19.0]; SMD, 0.34). Patients in the intervention group from preintervention to postintervention period were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs (OR, 5.11 [95% CI, 1.93 to 13.42]; P = .001) by discharge compared with matched controls, and GOCD occurred significantly earlier in the hospitalization in the intervention patients as compared with matched controls (median, 4 [95% CI, 3 to 6] days vs 16 [95% CI, 15 to not applicable] days; P < .001). Similar findings were observed for Black patient and White patient subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients whose physicians had knowledge of high-risk predictions from machine learning mortality algorithms were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs than matched controls. Additional external validation is needed to determine if similar interventions would be helpful at other institutions.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultChildCohort StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHospitals, CommunityHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID37071421
PMCPMC10114011
OpenAlexW4366239713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.