Informative missingness: What can we learn from patterns in missing laboratory data in the electronic health record?

BACKGROUND: In electronic health records, patterns of missing laboratory test results could capture patients' course of disease as well as ​​reflect clinician's concerns or worries for possible conditions. These patterns are often understudied and overlooked. This study aims to identify informative patterns of missingness among laboratory data collected across 15 healthcare system sites in three countries for COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: We collected and analyzed demographic, diagnosis, and laboratory data for 69,939 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR tests across three countries from 1 January 2020 through 30 September 2021. We analyzed missing laboratory measurements across sites, missingness stratification by demographic variables, temporal trends of missingness, correlations between labs based on missingness indicators over time, and clustering of groups of labs based on their missingness/ordering pattern. RESULTS: With these analyses, we identified mapping issues faced in seven out of 15 sites. We also identified nuances in data collection and variable definition for the various sites. Temporal trend analyses may support the use of laboratory test result missingness patterns in identifying severe COVID-19 patients. Lastly, using missingness patterns, we determined relationships between various labs that reflect clinical behaviors. CONCLUSION: In this work, we use computational approaches to relate missingness patterns to hospital treatment capacity and highlight the heterogeneity of looking at COVID-19 over time and at multiple sites, where there might be different phases, policies, etc. Changes in missingness could suggest a change in a patient's condition, and patterns of missingness among laboratory measurements could potentially identify clinical outcomes. This allows sites to consider missing data as informative to analyses and help researchers identify which sites are better poised to study particular questions.

Why Is the Electronic Health Record So Challenging for Research and Clinical Care?

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) has become increasingly ubiquitous. At the same time, health professionals have been turning to this resource for access to data that is needed for the delivery of health care and for clinical research. There is little doubt that the EHR has made both of these functions easier than earlier days when we relied on paper-based clinical records. Coupled with modern database and data warehouse systems, high-speed networks, and the ability to share clinical data with others are large number of challenges that arguably limit the optimal use of the EHR OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to provide an exhaustive reference for those who use the EHR in clinical and research contexts, but also for health information systems professionals as they design, implement, and maintain EHR systems. METHODS: This study includes a panel of 24 biomedical informatics researchers, information technology professionals, and clinicians, all of whom have extensive experience in design, implementation, and maintenance of EHR systems, or in using the EHR as clinicians or researchers. All members of the panel are affiliated with Penn Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and have experience with a variety of different EHR platforms and systems and how they have evolved over time. RESULTS: Each of the authors has shared their knowledge and experience in using the EHR in a suite of 20 short essays, each representing a specific challenge and classified according to a functional hierarchy of interlocking facets such as usability and usefulness, data quality, standards, governance, data integration, clinical care, and clinical research. CONCLUSION: We provide here a set of perspectives on the challenges posed by the EHR to clinical and research users.

The characteristics of laboratory tests at admission and the risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes of severe and critical COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a public health emergency. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the risk factors for mortality in severe and critical COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with severe and critical COVID-19 from four hospitals in Wuhan, China, by evaluating the clinical characteristics and laboratory results, and using Cox proportional hazards model to assess the risk factors involved in disease progression. RESULTS: In total, 446 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled. The study indicated a high mortality rate (20.2%) in severe and critical COVID-19 patients. At the time of admission, all patients required oxygen therapy, and 52 (12%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, of which 50 (96%) died. The univariate Cox proportional hazards model showed a white blood cell count of more than 10 × 109/L (HR 3.993,95%CI 2.469 to 6.459) that correlated with an increased mortality rate. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that older age (HR 1.066, 95% CI 1.043 to 1.089) and higher white blood cell count (HR 1.135, 95% CI 1.080 to 1.192) were independent risk factors for determining COVID-19 associated mortality. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality in the population. Older age and higher white blood cell count were found to be independent risk factors for mortality.

Mental health among head and neck surgeons in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national study.

PURPOSE: Head and neck surgeons are among the highest risk for COVID-19 exposure, which also brings great risk to their mental wellbeing. In this study, we aim to evaluate mental health symptoms among head and neck surgeons in Brazil surrounding the time it was declared the epicenter of the virus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, survey-based study evaluating burnout, anxiety, distress, and depression among head and neck surgeons in Brazil, assessed through the single-item Mini-Z burnout assessment, 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: 163 physicians completed the survey (74.2% males). Anxiety, distress, burnout, and depression symptoms were reported in 74 (45.5%), 43 (26.3%), 24 (14.7%), and 26 (16.0%) physicians, respectively. On multivariable analysis, female physicians were more likely to report a positive screening for burnout compared to males (OR 2.88, CI [1.07-7.74]). Physicians 45 years or older were less likely to experience anxiety symptoms than those younger than 45 years (OR 0.40, CI [0.20-0.81]). Physicians with no self-reported prior psychiatric conditions were less likely to have symptoms of distress compared to those with such history (OR 0.11, CI [0.33-0.38]). CONCLUSION: Head and neck surgeons in Brazil reported symptoms of burnout, anxiety, distress and depression during our study period within the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions should monitor these symptoms throughout the pandemic. Further study is required to assess the long-term implications for physician wellness.

Snapshot Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Wellness in Nonphysician Otolaryngology Health Care Workers: A National Study.

OBJECTIVE: Nonphysician health care workers are involved in high-risk patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, placing them at high risk of mental health burden. The mental health impact of COVID-19 in this crucial population has not been studied thus far. Thus, the objective of this study is to assess the psychosocial well-being of these providers. STUDY DESIGN: National cross-sectional online survey (no control group). SETTING: Academic otolaryngology programs in the United States. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We distributed a survey to nonphysician health care workers in otolaryngology departments across the United States. The survey incorporated a variety of validated mental health assessment tools to measure participant burnout (Mini-Z assessment), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), distress (Impact of Event Scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictive factors associated with these mental health outcomes. RESULTS: We received 347 survey responses: 248 (71.5%) nurses, 63 (18.2%) administrative staff, and 36 (10.4%) advanced practice providers. A total of 104 (30.0%) respondents reported symptoms of burnout; 241 (69.5%), symptoms of anxiety; 292 (84.1%), symptoms of at least mild distress; and 79 (22.8%), symptoms of depression. Upon further analysis, development of these symptoms was associated with factors such as occupation, practice setting, and case load. CONCLUSION: Frontline otolaryngology health care providers exhibit high rates of mental health complications, particularly anxiety and distress, in the wake of COVID-19. Adequate support systems must be put into place to address these issues.

Mental health among otolaryngology resident and attending physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: National study.

BACKGROUND: Otolaryngologists are among the highest risk for COVID-19 exposure. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, survey-based, national study evaluating academic otolaryngologists. Burnout, anxiety, distress, and depression were assessed by the single-item Mini-Z Burnout Assessment, 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, 15-item Impact of Event Scale, and 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 349 physicians completed the survey. Of them, 165 (47.3%) were residents and 212 (60.7%) were males. Anxiety, distress, burnout, and depression were reported in 167 (47.9%), 210 (60.2%), 76 (21.8%), and 37 (10.6%) physicians, respectively. Attendings had decreased burnout relative to residents (odds ratio [OR] 0.28, confidence interval [CI] [0.11-0.68]; P = .005). Females had increased burnout (OR 1.93, CI [1.12.-3.32]; P = .018), anxiety (OR 2.53, CI [1.59-4.02]; P < .005), and distress (OR 2.68, CI [1.64-4.37]; P < .005). Physicians in states with greater than 20 000 positive cases had increased distress (OR 2.01, CI [1.22-3.31]; P = .006). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of burnout, anxiety, and distress is high among academic otolaryngologists.