ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Leveraging the electronic health record to identify delivery of goal-concordant care.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Goal-concordant care (GCC) is recognized as the highest quality of care and most important outcome measure for serious illness research, yet there is no agreed-upon or validated method to measure it. Objective: Assess feasibility of measuring GCC using clinical documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). Design: Retrospective chart review study. Participants: Adults with ≥50% predicted six-month mortality risk admitted to three urban hospitals in a single health system. All participants had goals-of-care (GOC) discussions documented in the EHR 6 months before and 6 months after admission manually classified into one of four categories of goals: (1) comfort-focused, (2) maintain or improve function, (3) life-extension, or (4) unclear. Main Measures: Pairs of physician-coders independently reviewed EHR notes from 6 months before through 6 months after admission to identify and classify care received between each documented GOC discussion into one of the four goals categories. Epochs between GOC discussions were then coded as goal-concordant if GOC and care received classifications were aligned, goal-discordant if they were misaligned, or uncertain if either classification was unclear or not documented. Coder inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappa statistics. Key Results: Inter-rater reliability for classifying care received was almost perfect (95% interrater agreement; Cohen's kappa=0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99). Of 398 total epochs across 109 unique patients, 198 (50%) were goal-concordant, 112 (28%) were of uncertain concordance, and 88 (22%) were goal-discordant. Eighty (73%) patients received care of uncertain concordance during at least one epoch. Forty-eight (44%) patients received goal-discordant care during at least one epoch. Conclusions: Clinician chart review was a feasible method for measuring GCC and can inform natural language processing and machine learning methods to improve the clinical and research utility of this method. More work is needed to understand the driving factors underlying the high rate of uncertain concordance and goal-discordant care identified among this seriously ill cohort.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.