Michael F Gensheimer, Winifred Teuteberg, Manali I Patel, Divya Gupta, Mahjabin Noroozi, Xi Ling, Touran Fardeen, Briththa Seevaratnam, Ying Lu, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jan DeNofrio, Jennifer Hansen, Nigam H Shah, Thomas Chen, Elwyn Cabebe, Douglas W Blayney, Alexander D Colevas, Kavitha Ramchandran
{"title":"自动选择患者并提供护理指导,以增加癌症患者的预先护理规划。","authors":"Michael F Gensheimer, Winifred Teuteberg, Manali I Patel, Divya Gupta, Mahjabin Noroozi, Xi Ling, Touran Fardeen, Briththa Seevaratnam, Ying Lu, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jan DeNofrio, Jennifer Hansen, Nigam H Shah, Thomas Chen, Elwyn Cabebe, Douglas W Blayney, Alexander D Colevas, Kavitha Ramchandran","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning and serious illness conversations can help clinicians understand patients' values and preferences. Data are limited on how to increase the number of these conversations and what their effects are on care patterns. We hypothesized that using a machine learning survival model to select patients for serious illness conversations, along with trained care coaches to conduct the conversations, would increase uptake in patients with cancer at high risk of short-term mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge study on the physician level. Oncologists entered the intervention condition in a random order over 6 months. Adult patients with metastatic cancer were included. Patients with a less than 2-year computer-predicted survival and no prognosis documentation were classified as high priority for serious illness conversations. In the intervention condition, clinicians received automated weekly emails highlighting high-priority patients and were asked to document prognoses for them. Care coaches contacted these patients to conduct the remainder of the conversation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 6372 visits with 1825 patients in the primary analysis. The proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days was higher in the intervention condition than in the control condition: 2.9% vs 1.1% (adjusted odds ratio = 4.3, P < .001). The proportion of visits with advance care planning documentation was also higher in the intervention condition: 7.7% vs 1.8% (adjusted odds ratio = 14.2, P < .001). For high-priority visits, the advance care planning documentation rate in intervention visits was 24.2% and in control visits was 4.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention increased documented conversations, with contributions by both clinicians and care coaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":14809,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":" ","pages":"296-302"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated patient selection and care coaches to increase advance care planning for patients with cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Michael F Gensheimer, Winifred Teuteberg, Manali I Patel, Divya Gupta, Mahjabin Noroozi, Xi Ling, Touran Fardeen, Briththa Seevaratnam, Ying Lu, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Mary Khay Asuncion, Jan DeNofrio, Jennifer Hansen, Nigam H Shah, Thomas Chen, Elwyn Cabebe, Douglas W Blayney, Alexander D Colevas, Kavitha Ramchandran\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djae243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning and serious illness conversations can help clinicians understand patients' values and preferences. Data are limited on how to increase the number of these conversations and what their effects are on care patterns. We hypothesized that using a machine learning survival model to select patients for serious illness conversations, along with trained care coaches to conduct the conversations, would increase uptake in patients with cancer at high risk of short-term mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge study on the physician level. Oncologists entered the intervention condition in a random order over 6 months. Adult patients with metastatic cancer were included. Patients with a less than 2-year computer-predicted survival and no prognosis documentation were classified as high priority for serious illness conversations. In the intervention condition, clinicians received automated weekly emails highlighting high-priority patients and were asked to document prognoses for them. Care coaches contacted these patients to conduct the remainder of the conversation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 6372 visits with 1825 patients in the primary analysis. The proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days was higher in the intervention condition than in the control condition: 2.9% vs 1.1% (adjusted odds ratio = 4.3, P < .001). The proportion of visits with advance care planning documentation was also higher in the intervention condition: 7.7% vs 1.8% (adjusted odds ratio = 14.2, P < .001). For high-priority visits, the advance care planning documentation rate in intervention visits was 24.2% and in control visits was 4.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention increased documented conversations, with contributions by both clinicians and care coaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"296-302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae243\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae243","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Automated patient selection and care coaches to increase advance care planning for patients with cancer.
Background: Advance care planning and serious illness conversations can help clinicians understand patients' values and preferences. Data are limited on how to increase the number of these conversations and what their effects are on care patterns. We hypothesized that using a machine learning survival model to select patients for serious illness conversations, along with trained care coaches to conduct the conversations, would increase uptake in patients with cancer at high risk of short-term mortality.
Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge study on the physician level. Oncologists entered the intervention condition in a random order over 6 months. Adult patients with metastatic cancer were included. Patients with a less than 2-year computer-predicted survival and no prognosis documentation were classified as high priority for serious illness conversations. In the intervention condition, clinicians received automated weekly emails highlighting high-priority patients and were asked to document prognoses for them. Care coaches contacted these patients to conduct the remainder of the conversation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days.
Results: We included 6372 visits with 1825 patients in the primary analysis. The proportion of visits with prognosis documentation within 14 days was higher in the intervention condition than in the control condition: 2.9% vs 1.1% (adjusted odds ratio = 4.3, P < .001). The proportion of visits with advance care planning documentation was also higher in the intervention condition: 7.7% vs 1.8% (adjusted odds ratio = 14.2, P < .001). For high-priority visits, the advance care planning documentation rate in intervention visits was 24.2% and in control visits was 4.0%.
Conclusion: The intervention increased documented conversations, with contributions by both clinicians and care coaches.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a reputable publication that undergoes a peer-review process. It is available in both print (ISSN: 0027-8874) and online (ISSN: 1460-2105) formats, with 12 issues released annually. The journal's primary aim is to disseminate innovative and important discoveries in the field of cancer research, with specific emphasis on clinical, epidemiologic, behavioral, and health outcomes studies. Authors are encouraged to submit reviews, minireviews, and commentaries. The journal ensures that submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and expedited review to publish scientifically and medically significant findings in a timely manner.