Herasevich, Vitaly

Objective: To evaluate the impact of health information technology (HIT) for early detection of patient deterioration on patient mortality and length of stay (LOS) in acute care hospital settings. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 1990 to January 19, 2021. Study Selection: We included studies that enrolled patients hospitalized on the floor, in the ICU, or admitted through the emergency department. Eligible studies compared HIT for early detection of patient deterioration with usual care and reported at least one end point of interest: hospital or ICU LOS or mortality at any time point. Data Extraction: Study data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized data extraction form. Data Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. Among the 30 eligible studies, seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 were pre-post studies. Compared with usual care, HIT for early detection of patient deterioration was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality or LOS in the meta-analyses of RCTs. In the meta-analyses of pre-post studies, HIT interventions demonstrated a significant association with improved hospital mortality for the entire study cohort (odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70–0.87]) and reduced hospital LOS overall. Conclusions: HIT for early detection of patient deterioration in acute care settings was not significantly associated with improved mortality or LOS in the meta-analyses of RCTs. In the meta-analyses of pre-post studies, HIT was associated with improved hospital mortality and LOS; however, these results should be interpreted with caution. The differences in patient outcomes between the findings of the RCTs and pre-post studies may be secondary to confounding caused by unmeasured improvements in practice and workflow over time.

Background: It is known that hypokalemia, hypocalcemia and hypomagnesemia cause a prolonged QTc interval and are associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias. However, there are limited data on optimal serum electrolytes for patients admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU). Objective: Here, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between serum potassium, ionized calcium and magnesium levels and in-hospital mortality in the CCU setting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 8,498 consecutive patients admitted to the CCU at an academic tertiary medical center from 2004 through 2013. The mean of serum electrolytes was categorized as <3.5, 3.5-<4.0, 4.0-<4.5 (reference), 4.5-<5.0, and ≥5.0 mEq/L for potassium; <4.4, 4.4-<4.6, 4.6-<4.8, 4.8-<5.0 (reference), and ≥5.0 mg/dL for ionized calcium; and <1.8, 1.8-<2.0, 2.0-<2.2 (reference), 2.2-<2.4, and ≥2.4 mg/dL for magnesium. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between the mean of serum electrolytes and in-hospital mortality. Results: Of the 8,498 patients, 599 (7%) died during hospitalization. Relationship between mean serum potassium (U-shaped), ionized calcium (inverted J-shape) and magnesium (J-shaped) and in-hospital mortality was present in Figure. Serum potassium levels <3.5, 4.5-<5.0 and ≥5.0 mEq/L were independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.7 95% CI 1.1-2.5, OR 1.7 95% CI 1.3-2.2, and OR 3.4 95% CI 2.4-4.8, respectively), compared to the reference group. As for serum ionized calcium, the levels of <4.4, 4.4-<4.6, and 4.6-<4.8 mg/dL independently increased risk of mortality (adjusted OR 3.0 95% CI 2.3-4.0, OR 2.0 95% CI 1.5-2.6, and OR 1.4 95% CI, 1.1-1.8, respectively). As for serum magnesium, an only level above 2.4 mg/dL was associated with an increased mortality risk (OR 1.6 95% CI, 1.1-2.2). Conclusions: In the CCU setting, serum potassium 3.5-<4.5 mEq/L, ionized calcium ≥5.0 mg/dL and magnesium <2.4 mg/dL are associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality. These findings do not support supratherapeutic repletion of potassium and magnesium.

Abstract Background The amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR). Methods Data are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Study Eligibility Criteria Peer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021. Participants All physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods A narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Results Out of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity. Conclusion This systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.

ABSTRACT Objectives The objectives of this study were to test in real time a Trauma Triage, Treatment, and Training Decision Support (4TDS) machine learning (ML) model of shock detection in a prospective silent trial, and to evaluate specificity, sensitivity, and other estimates of diagnostic performance compared to the gold standard of electronic medical records (EMRs) review. Design We performed a single-center diagnostic performance study. Patients and setting A prospective cohort consisted of consecutive patients aged 18 years and older who were admitted from May 1 through September 30, 2020 to six Mayo Clinic intensive care units (ICUs) and five progressive care units. Measurements and main results During the study time, 5,384 out of 6,630 hospital admissions were eligible. During the same period, the 4TDS shock model sent 825 alerts and 632 were eligible. Among 632 hospital admissions with alerts, 287 were screened positive and 345 were negative. Among 4,752 hospital admissions without alerts, 78 were screened positive and 4,674 were negative. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the 4TDS shock model was 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87%). The 4TDS shock model demonstrated a sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI 74.1-82.7%) and a specificity of 93.1% (95% CI 92.4-93.8%). The model showed a positive predictive value of 45.4% (95% CI 42.6-48.3%) and a negative predictive value of 98.4% (95% CI 98-98.6%). Conclusions We successfully validated an ML model to detect circulatory shock in a prospective observational study. The model used only vital signs and showed moderate performance compared to the gold standard of clinician EMR review when applied to an ICU patient cohort.

Abstract Background: Palliative care is a medical specialty centered on improving the quality of life (QOL) of patients with complex or life-threatening illnesses. The need for Palliative care is increasing and with that the rigorous testing of triage tools that can be used quickly and reliably to identify patients that may benefit from palliative care. Methods: To that Aim we will conduct a two-armed stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial rolled out to two inpatient hospitals to evaluate whether a machine learning algorithm accurately identifies patients who may benefit from a comprehensive review by a palliative care specialist, and decreases time to receiving a palliative care consult in hospital. This is a single-center study which will be conducted from August 2019 to November 2020 at Saint Mary’s Hospital & Methodist Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Clusters will be nursing units which will be chosen to be a mix of complex patients from Cardiology, Critical Care and Oncology and had previously established relationships with palliative medicine. The stepped wedge design will have 12 units allocated to a design matrix of 5 treatment wedges. Each wedge will last 75 days resulting in a study period of 12 months unless otherwise specified. Data will be analyzed with Bayesian hierarchical models with credible intervals denoting statistical significance.Discussion: This intervention offers a pragmatic approach to delivering specialty palliative care to hospital patients in need using machine learning, thereby leading to high value care and improved outcomes. It is not enough for AI to be utilized by simply publishing research showing predictive performance; Clinical trials demonstrating better outcomes are critically needed. Furthermore, the deployment of an AI algorithm is a complex process that requires multiple teams with varying skill sets. To evaluate a deployed AI, a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate the difficulties of clinical practice whilst retaining scientific rigor.Trial registration NCT03976297 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered on June 6, 2019 prior to trial start.

335 Background: Systematic reviews are outdated quickly when the evidence is rapidly evolving as the process is laborious and there is little incentive for primary author team of an index SRMA to update the evidence. Consequently, there is an epidemic of redundant SRMAs performed by different teams—sometimes with conflicted results—for treatment of first line mRCC. Methods: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR)and network meta-analysis(LINMA) for the treatment of first line mRCC using an Artificial intelligence (AI) assisted framework for evidence synthesis (Living, Interactive evidence synthesis framework) (LIvE) . The framework is implemented in five-layered architecture (application layer, shared module layer, core service layer, middleware layer, and storage layer) which work together to automate the identification of new studies and analysis and semi-automate the screening and data extraction. Dynamic features such as interactive tables, figures and evidence maps are enabled using Python and JavaScript programming languages. Results: We have maintained a living, interactive evidence profile for the first line treatment mRCC since September 2019 ( LIVING WEBSITE) . Living search strategy identifies new studies as they become available. As of October 13, 2020 LISR, includes data 14 clinical trials ( PRISMA ). Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table ( TABLE) . Cabozantinib& Nivolumab (Cabo-Nivo) is the highest ranked drug for improving Overall Response (OR), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) whereas Ipilimumab in combination with Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) is highest ranked drug for achieving complete response (CR). Ipi-Nivo and Atezolizumab & Bevacizumab (Ate-Bev) ranked highest and Cabo-Nivo ranked lowest for treatment related Adverse events (TRAEs). Results of network meta-analysis are summarized as interactive tables and plots ( NMA ), summary of findings tables ( MULTIPLE COMAPRISONS ) and evidence maps ( MAP ). Conclusions: LISRs can potentially reduce redundancy, increase transparency, reproducibility, enable shared-decision making (at a guideline level, or in a patient-clinician dyad) and support living guidelines.