Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Predictive studies play important roles in the development of models informing care for patients with COVID-19. Our concern is that studies producing ill-performing models may lead to inappropriate clinical decision-making. Thus, our objective is to summarise and characterise performance of prognostic models for COVID-19 on external data. METHODS:We performed a validation of parsimonious prognostic models for patients with COVID-19 from a literature search for published and preprint articles. Ten models meeting inclusion criteria were either (a) externally validated with our data against the model variables and weights or (b) rebuilt using original features if no weights were provided. Nine studies had internally or externally validated models on cohorts of between 18 and 320 inpatients with COVID-19. One model used cross-validation. Our external validation cohort consisted of 4444 patients with COVID-19 hospitalised between 1 March and 27 May 2020. RESULTS:Most models failed validation when applied to our institution's data. Included studies reported an average validation area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC) of 0.828. Models applied with reported features averaged an AUROC of 0.66 when validated on our data. Models rebuilt with the same features averaged an AUROC of 0.755 when validated on our data. In both cases, models did not validate against their studies' reported AUROC values. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Published and preprint prognostic models for patients infected with COVID-19 performed substantially worse when applied to external data. Further inquiry is required to elucidate mechanisms underlying performance deviations. CONCLUSIONS:Clinicians should employ caution when applying models for clinical prediction without careful validation on local data.

BACKGROUND:Previous work has demonstrated that patients experience functional decline at 1-3 months post-discharge after COVID-19 hospitalization. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether symptoms persist further or improve over time, we followed patients discharged after hospitalization for severe COVID-19 to characterize their overall health status and their physical and mental health at 6 months post-hospital discharge. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Patients ≥ 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 at a single health system, who required at minimum 6 l of supplemental oxygen during admission, had intact baseline functional status, and were discharged alive. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Overall health status, physical health, mental health, and dyspnea were assessed with validated surveys: the PROMIS® Global Health-10 and PROMIS® Dyspnea Characteristics instruments. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Of 152 patients who completed the 1 month post-discharge survey, 126 (83%) completed the 6-month survey. Median age of 6-month respondents was 62; 40% were female. Ninety-three (74%) patients reported that their health had not returned to baseline at 6 months, and endorsed a mean of 7.1 symptoms. Participants' summary t-scores in both the physical health and mental health domains at 6 months (45.2, standard deviation [SD] 9.8; 47.4, SD 9.8, respectively) remained lower than their baseline (physical health 53.7, SD 9.4; mental health 54.2, SD 8.0; p<0.001). Overall, 79 (63%) patients reported shortness of breath within the prior week (median score 2 out of 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-5), vs 42 (33%) pre-COVID-19 infection (0, IQR 0-1)). A total of 11/124 (9%) patients without pre-COVID oxygen requirements still needed oxygen 6 months post-hospital discharge. One hundred and seven (85%) were still experiencing fatigue at 6 months post-discharge. CONCLUSIONS:Even 6 months after hospital discharge, the majority of patients report that their health has not returned to normal. Support and treatments to return these patients back to their pre-COVID baseline are urgently needed.

BACKGROUND:We sought to examine whether people with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) experienced a greater incidence of subsequent cognitive impairment (CI) compared to people without CVD, as suggested by prior studies, using a large longitudinal cohort. METHODS:We employed Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data collected biennially from 1998 to 2014 in 1305 U.S. adults age ≥ 65 newly diagnosed with CVD vs. 2610 age- and gender-matched controls. Diagnosis of CVD was adjudicated with an established HRS methodology and included self-reported coronary heart disease, angina, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or other heart conditions. CI was defined as a score < 11 on the 27-point modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. We examined incidence of CI over an 8-year period using a cumulative incidence function accounting for the competing risk of death. RESULTS:Mean age at study entry was 73 years, 55% were female, and 13% were non-white. Cognitive impairment developed in 1029 participants over 8 years. The probability of death over the study period was greater in the CVD group (19.8% vs. 13.8%, absolute difference 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.2 to 9.7%). The cumulative incidence analysis, which adjusted for the competing risk of death, showed no significant difference in likelihood of cognitive impairment between the CVD and control groups (29.7% vs. 30.6%, absolute difference - 0.9, 95% confidence interval - 5.6 to 3.7%). This finding did not change after adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics using a proportional subdistribution hazard regression model. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, we found no increased risk of subsequent CI among participants with CVD (compared with no CVD), despite previous studies indicating that incident CVD accelerates cognitive decline.

BACKGROUND:Clinical decision support (CDS) is a valuable feature of electronic health records (EHRs) designed to improve quality and safety. However, due to the complexities of system design and inconsistent results, CDS tools may inadvertently increase alert fatigue and contribute to physician burnout. A/B testing, or rapid-cycle randomized tests, is a useful method that can be applied to the EHR in order to rapidly understand and iteratively improve design choices embedded within CDS tools. OBJECTIVE:This paper describes how rapid randomized controlled trials (RCTs) embedded within EHRs can be used to quickly ascertain the superiority of potential CDS design changes to improve their usability, reduce alert fatigue, and promote quality of care. METHODS:A multistep process combining tools from user-centered design, A/B testing, and implementation science was used to understand, ideate, prototype, test, analyze, and improve each candidate CDS. CDS engagement metrics (alert views, acceptance rates) were used to evaluate which CDS version is superior. RESULTS:To demonstrate the impact of the process, 2 experiments are highlighted. First, after multiple rounds of usability testing, a revised CDS influenza alert was tested against usual care CDS in a rapid (~6 weeks) RCT. The new alert text resulted in minimal impact on reducing firings per patients per day, but this failure triggered another round of review that identified key technical improvements (ie, removal of dismissal button and firings in procedural areas) that led to a dramatic decrease in firings per patient per day (23.1 to 7.3). In the second experiment, the process was used to test 3 versions (financial, quality, regulatory) of text supporting tobacco cessation alerts as well as 3 supporting images. Based on 3 rounds of RCTs, there was no significant difference in acceptance rates based on the framing of the messages or addition of images. CONCLUSIONS:These experiments support the potential for this new process to rapidly develop, deploy, and rigorously evaluate CDS within an EHR. We also identified important considerations in applying these methods. This approach may be an important tool for improving the impact of and experience with CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:Flu alert trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03415425; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03415425. Tobacco alert trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03714191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03714191.

ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:Health information technology (IT) is often proposed as a solution to fragmentation of care, and has been hypothesized to reduce readmission risk through better information flow. However, there are numerous distinct health IT capabilities, and it is unclear which, if any, are associated with lower readmission risk.To identify the specific health IT capabilities adopted by hospitals that are associated with hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) through path analyses using structural equation modeling.This STROBE-compliant retrospective cross-sectional study included non-federal U.S. acute care hospitals, based on their adoption of specific types of health IT capabilities self-reported in a 2013 American Hospital Association IT survey as independent variables. The outcome measure included the 2014 RSRRs reported on Hospital Compare website.A 54-indicator 7-factor structure of hospital health IT capabilities was identified by exploratory factor analysis, and corroborated by confirmatory factor analysis. Subsequent path analysis using Structural equation modeling revealed that a one-point increase in the hospital adoption of patient engagement capability latent scores (median path coefficient ß = -0.086; 95% Confidence Interval, -0.162 to -0.008), including functionalities like direct access to the electronic health records, would generally lead to a decrease in RSRRs by 0.086%. However, computerized hospital discharge and information exchange capabilities with other inpatient and outpatient providers were not associated with readmission rates.These findings suggest that improving patient access to and use of their electronic health records may be helpful in improving hospital performance on readmission; however, computerized hospital discharge and information exchange among clinicians did not seem as beneficial - perhaps because of the quality or timeliness of information transmitted. Future research should use more recent data to study, not just adoption of health IT capabilities, but also whether their usage is associated with lower readmission risk. Understanding which capabilities impact readmission risk can help policymakers and clinical stakeholders better focus their scarce resources as they invest in health IT to improve care delivery.

Early reports showed high mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Mortality rates have recently been lower; however, patients are also now younger, with fewer comorbidities. We explored 28-day mortality for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in England over a 5-month period, adjusting for a range of potentially mitigating variables, including sociodemographics and comorbidities. Among 102,610 hospitalizations, crude mortality decreased from 33.4% (95% CI, 32.9-34.0) in March 2020 to 15.5% (95% CI, 14.1-17.0) in July. Adjusted mortality decreased from 33.4% (95% CI, 32.8-34.1) in March to 17.4% (95% CI, 11.3-26.9) in July. The relative risk of mortality decreased from a reference of 1 in March to 0.52 (95% CI, 0.34-0.80) in July. This demonstrates that the reduction in mortality is not solely due to changes in the demographics of those with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Safely and effectively discharging a patient from the hospital requires working within a multidisciplinary team. However, little is known about how perceptions of responsibility among the team impact discharge communication practices. OBJECTIVE:Our study attempts to understand residents' perceptions of who is primarily responsible for discharge education, how these perceptions affect their own reported communication with patients, and how residents envision improving multidisciplinary communication around discharges. DESIGN/METHODS:A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Internal medicine (IM) residents from seven US residency programs at academic medical centers were invited to participate between March and May 2019, via email of an electronic link to the survey. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Data collected included resident perception of who on the multidisciplinary team is primarily responsible for discharge communication, their own reported discharge communication practices, and open-ended comments on ways discharge multidisciplinary team communication could be improved. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Of the 613 resident responses (63% response rate), 35% reported they were unsure which member of the multidisciplinary team is primarily responsible for discharge education. Residents who believed it was either the intern's or the resident's primary responsibility had 4.28 (95% CI, 2.51-7.30) and 3.01 (95% CI, 1.66-5.71) times the odds, respectively, of reporting doing discharge communication practices frequently compared to those who were not sure who was primarily responsible. To improve multidisciplinary discharge communication, residents called for the following among team members: (1) clarifying roles and responsibilities for communication with patients, (2) setting expectations for communication among multidisciplinary team members, and (3) redefining culture around discharges. CONCLUSIONS:Residents report a lack of understanding of who is responsible for discharge education. This diffusion of ownership impacts how much residents invest in patient education, with more perceived responsibility associated with more frequent discharge communication.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Reports from the United States suggest that acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently complicates COVID-19, but understanding of AKI risks and outcomes is incomplete. Additionally, whether kidney outcomes have evolved during the course of the pandemic is unknown. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We used electronic records to identify COVID-19 patients with and without AKI admitted to 3 New York Hospitals between March 2 and August 25, 2020. Outcomes included AKI overall and according to admission week, AKI stage, the requirement for new renal replacement therapy (RRT), mortality and recovery of kidney function. Logistic regression was utilized to assess associations of patient characteristics and outcomes. Results/UNASSIGNED:Out of 4732 admissions 1386 (29.3%) patients had AKI. Among those with AKI, 717 (51.7%) had Stage 1, 132 (9.5%) Stage 2, 537 (38.7%) stage 3, and 237 (17.1%) required RRT initiation. In March 536/1648 (32.5%) of patients developed AKI compared with 15/87 (17.2%) in August (P<0.001 for monthly trend) whereas RRT initiation was required in 6.9% and 0% of admission, in March and August respectively. Mortality was higher with than without AKI (51.6% vs 8.6%) and was 71.9% in individuals requiring RRT. However, most patients with AKI who survived hospitalization (77%) recovered to within 0.3 mg/dL of baseline creatinine. Among those surviving to discharge, 62% discontinued RRT. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:AKI impacts a high proportion of admitted COVID-19 patients and is associated with high mortality, particularly when RRT is required. AKI incidence appears to be decreasing over time and kidney function frequently recovers in those who survive.