Ohde, Joshua W.

Abstract Models that estimate the probability of an adverse clinical outcome require an operational cutoff to translate continuous estimated probabilities into discrete labels that can trigger clinical action. Although statistical methods identify ‘optimal’ cut-offs, threshold selection ultimately reflects value judgments regarding harm tolerance, resource allocation, and workflow feasibility. We describe a governance-informed approach to selecting a deployment threshold for an asthma exacerbation (AE) prediction model integrated into clinical workflows. Using prevalence-adjusted performance metrics and real-world provider capacity modeling, we evaluated multiple candidate thresholds and quantified downstream workload and missed-event trade-offs. We demonstrate that statistically optimal thresholds may produce operationally infeasible alert volumes or unacceptable miss rates. We propose a structured threshold governance framework integrating statistical performance, clinical utility, stakeholder input, and human oversight safeguards. This case illustrates how threshold decisions should be treated as organizational governance processes rather than purely technical optimizations.

435 Background: Assessing tobacco use and providing cessation support is recommended by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). As part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, we established an electronic health record based "opt-out" approach to refer patients to tobacco treatment specialists. However, the role of oncologists in contributing to the “opt-out” approach to patients has not been explored. We tested the hypothesis that a multi-component educational program for oncologists would increase the proportion of patients who completed tobacco treatment appointments. Methods: As a quality improvement initiative, oncology providers at the Rochester Mayo Clinic Cancer Center were educated using a multimodal academic detailing approach with group and individual educational sessions. Its effectiveness was tested using a modified step-wedge implementation design. The primary outcomes were patient behaviors that could plausibly be changed by conversations with their provider: the rate at which cancer patients identified as current tobacco users scheduled an appointment in the Nicotine Dependence Center, and the rate at which patients scheduled for a NDC appointment completed their appointment. Comparisons were made before, during, and after the education period (from July through Dec 2019) and with a separate group of providers who did not complete education (results examined over a similar time period). Results: Education intervention did not improve outcomes among providers who received education; indeed, the rate of appointment scheduling decreased, although this may reflect other concurrent changes in the tobacco treatment referral process (Table 1). Outcomes were similar between oncology providers who did and did not receive multicomponent education intervention. Conclusions: Smoking cessation efforts can be successfully integrated into routine cancer care. The implementation of the “opt-out” referral system resulted in approximately 1 in 5 patients being seen for tobacco use, but a multicomponent education intervention designed to equip oncologists to encourage patients to complete appointments was not effective. Novel approaches are needed to increase the uptake of tobacco treatment among patients.[Table: see text]

e22500 Background: Oncologists are change agents to improve tobacco cessation among patients. As part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, we established an electronic health record (EHR, Epic)-based "opt-out" approach to refer patients to tobacco treatment specialist without active involvement by oncologists. However, the role of oncologists in contributing to the “opt-out” approach to patients has not been explored. We tested the hypothesis that a multi-component educational program for oncologists would increase the proportion of patients who completed tobacco treatment appointments. Methods: As a quality improvement initiative, oncology providers at the Rochester Mayo Clinic Cancer Center were educated using a multimodal academic detailing approach with group and individual educational sessions. Its effectiveness was tested using a modified step-wedge implementation design. The primary outcomes were patient behaviors that could plausibly be changed by conversations with their provider: the rate at which cancer patients identified as current tobacco users scheduled an appointment in the Nicotine Dependence Center (NDC) (which required active patient involvement), and the rate at which patients scheduled for a NDC appointment completed their appointment. Comparisons were made before, during, and after the education period (from July through Dec 2019) and with a separate group of providers who did not complete education (results examined over a similar time period). Results: Education did not improve outcomes in providers who received education; indeed, the rate of appointment scheduling decreased, although this may reflect other concurrent changes in the referral process (Table). Outcomes were similar between providers who did and did not receive education. Conclusions: Tobacco cessation efforts should be routinely integrated into cancer care to improve outcomes. The “opt-out” program resulted in approximately 1 in 5 cancer patients being seen for tobacco use, but an academic detailing approach designed to equip oncology providers to encourage their patients to complete appointments was not effective. Other approaches are needed to increase the uptake of tobacco treatment in these patients. [Table: see text]

Continued tobacco use after cancer diagnosis is detrimental to treatment and survivorship. The current reach of evidence-based tobacco treatments in cancer patients is low. As a part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center designed an electronic health record (EHR, Epic©)-based process to automatically refer ambulatory oncology patients to tobacco use treatment, regardless of intent to cease tobacco use(“opt out”). The referral and patient scheduling, accomplished through a best practice advisory (BPA) directed to staff who room patients, does not require a co-signature from clinicians. This process was piloted for a six-week period starting in July of 2019 at the Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. All oncology patients who were tobacco users were referred for tobacco treatment by the rooming staff (n = 210). Of these, 150 (71%) had a tobacco treatment appointment scheduled, and 25 (17%) completed their appointment. We conclude that an EHR-based “opt-out” approach to refer patients to tobacco dependence treatment that does not require active involvement by clinicians is feasible within the oncology clinical practice. Further work is needed to increase the proportion of scheduled patients who attend their appointments.