Consensus pregnancy-related criteria for suicide and unintentional overdoses using a Delphi process.

Suicide and unintentional overdose are leading manners of preventable death during and within a year of pregnancy. Recently, the Utah Maternal Mortality Review Committee (MMRC) developed 10 criteria to guide pregnancy-related classification of these deaths. Our objective was to (1) evaluate if consensus could be reached across experts in maternal mortality review when applying criteria to the determination of pregnancy-relatedness in mock MMRC case evaluation and (2) assess how additional case information shifted participants' determination of pregnancy-relatedness in these mock cases. We used a modified Delphi process to evaluate criteria for pregnancy-related suicides and unintentional overdose. The study team developed base case scenarios to reflect the 10 proposed criteria. Base scenarios varied in timing of death (prenatal or delivery, early postpartum (<6 months), late postpartum (6-12 months)) and level of additional information available (e.g., informant interviews, social media posts). Consensus in favor of a criterion was met when ≥75% of participants identified a case as pregnancy-related in at least 1 scenario. Fifty-eight participants, representing 48 MMRCs, reviewed scenarios. Of 10 proposed criteria, 8 reached consensus. Overall, participants classified 19.4% of base case scenarios as pregnancy-related, which increased to 56.8% with additional information. Pregnancy-related classification changed across timing of death and with availability of additional information (prenatal or delivery 27.7% versus 84.6%; early postpartum 30.0% versus 58.3%; late postpartum 0.0% versus 25.0%, respectively). We identified consensus supporting the application of 8 standardized criteria in MMRC determinations of pregnancy-relatedness among suicide and unintentional overdose deaths.

"The Doctor Needs to Know": Acceptability of Smartphone Location Tracking for Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination can be highly challenging to carry out. When care is fragmented across health systems and providers, there is an increased likelihood of hospital readmissions and wasteful health care spending. During and after care transitions, smartphones have the potential to bolster information transfer and care coordination. However, little research has examined patients' perceptions of using smartphones to coordinate care. OBJECTIVE: This study's primary objective was to explore patient acceptability of a smartphone app that could facilitate care coordination in a safety net setting. Our secondary objective was to identify how clinicians and other members of primary care teams could use this app to coordinate care. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted at a federally qualified health center in metropolitan Chicago, IL. We conducted four focus groups (two in English, two in Spanish) with high-risk adults who owned a smartphone and received services from an organizational care management program. We also conducted structured interviews with clinicians and a group interview with care managers. Focus groups elicited patients' perceptions of a smartphone app designed to: (1) identify emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient stays using real-time location data; (2) send automated notifications (ie, alerts) to users' phones, asking whether they were a patient in the hospital; and (3) send automated messages to primary care teams to notify them about patients' confirmed ED visits and inpatient stays. Focus group transcripts were coded based on emergent themes. Clinicians and care managers were asked about messages they would like to receive from the app. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged in patient focus group discussions. First, participants expressed a high degree of willingness to use the proposed app during inpatient stays. Second, participants expressed varying degrees of willingness to use the app during ED visits, particularly for low acuity ED visits. Third, participants stated their willingness to have their location tracked by the proposed app due to its perceived benefits. Fourth, the most frequently mentioned barriers to acceptability were inconveniences such as "false alarm" notifications and smartphone battery drainage. Finally, there was some tension between how to maximize usability without unnecessarily increasing user burden. Both clinicians and care managers expressed interest in receiving messages from the app at the time of hospital arrival and at discharge. Clinicians were particularly interested in conducting outreach during ED visits and inpatient stays, while care managers expressed more interest in coordinating postdischarge care. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk primary care patients in a safety net setting reported a willingness to utilize smartphone location tracking technology to facilitate care coordination. Further research is needed on the development and implementation of new smartphone-based approaches to care coordination.