RESUMO
Background: Despite restrictive opioid management guidelines, opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a major public health concern. Machine learning (ML) offers a promising avenue for identifying and alerting clinicians about OUD, thus supporting better clinical decision-making regarding treatment. Objective: This study aimed to assess the clinical validity of an ML application designed to identify and alert clinicians of different levels of OUD risk by comparing it to a structured review of medical records by clinicians. Methods: The ML application generated OUD risk alerts on outpatient data for 649,504 patients from 2 medical centers between 2010 and 2013. A random sample of 60 patients was selected from 3 OUD risk level categories (n=180). An OUD risk classification scheme and standardized data extraction tool were developed to evaluate the validity of the alerts. Clinicians independently conducted a systematic and structured review of medical records and reached a consensus on a patient's OUD risk level, which was then compared to the ML application's risk assignments. Results: A total of 78,587 patients without cancer with at least 1 opioid prescription were identified as follows: not high risk (n=50,405, 64.1%), high risk (n=16,636, 21.2%), and suspected OUD or OUD (n=11,546, 14.7%). The sample of 180 patients was representative of the total population in terms of age, sex, and race. The interrater reliability between the ML application and clinicians had a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.71), indicating good agreement. Combining the high risk and suspected OUD or OUD categories and using the review of medical records as a gold standard, the ML application had a corrected sensitivity of 56.6% (95% CI 48.7%-64.5%) and a corrected specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.3%-98.1%). The positive and negative predictive values were 93.3% (95% CI 88.2%-96.3%) and 60.0% (95% CI 50.4%-68.9%), respectively. Key themes for disagreements between the ML application and clinician reviews were identified. Conclusions: A systematic comparison was conducted between an ML application and clinicians for identifying OUD risk. The ML application generated clinically valid and useful alerts about patients' different OUD risk levels. ML applications hold promise for identifying patients at differing levels of OUD risk and will likely complement traditional rule-based approaches to generating alerts about opioid safety issues.
RESUMO
Objective: To evaluate the ability of DynaMedex, an evidence-based drug and disease Point of Care Information (POCI) resource, in answering clinical queries using keyword searches. Methods: Real-world disease-related questions compiled from clinicians at an academic medical center, DynaMedex search query data, and medical board review resources were categorized into five clinical categories (complications & prognosis, diagnosis & clinical presentation, epidemiology, prevention & screening/monitoring, and treatment) and six specialties (cardiology, endocrinology, hematology-oncology, infectious disease, internal medicine, and neurology). A total of 265 disease-related questions were evaluated by pharmacist reviewers based on if an answer was found (yes, no), whether the answer was relevant (yes, no), difficulty in finding the answer (easy, not easy), cited best evidence available (yes, no), clinical practice guidelines included (yes, no), and level of detail provided (detailed, limited details). Results: An answer was found for 259/265 questions (98%). Both reviewers found an answer for 241 questions (91%), neither found the answer for 6 questions (2%), and only one reviewer found an answer for 18 questions (7%). Both reviewers found a relevant answer 97% of the time when an answer was found. Of all relevant answers found, 68% were easy to find, 97% cited best quality of evidence available, 72% included clinical guidelines, and 95% were detailed. Recommendations for areas of resource improvement were identified. Conclusions: The resource enabled reviewers to answer most questions easily with the best quality of evidence available, providing detailed answers and clinical guidelines, with a high level of replication of results across users.
Assuntos
Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , Humanos , Medicina Baseada em EvidênciasRESUMO
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/43960.].
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based point-of-care information (POCI) tools can facilitate patient safety and care by helping clinicians to answer disease state and drug information questions in less time and with less effort. However, these tools may also be visually challenging to navigate or lack the comprehensiveness needed to sufficiently address a medical issue. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to collect clinicians' feedback and directly observe their use of the combined POCI tool DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson, now known as DynaMedex. EBSCO partnered with IBM Watson Health, now known as Merative, to develop the combined tool as a resource for clinicians. We aimed to identify areas for refinement based on participant feedback and examine participant perceptions to inform further development. METHODS: Participants (N=43) within varying clinical roles and specialties were recruited from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, between August 10, 2021, and December 16, 2021, to take part in usability sessions aimed at evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of, as well as satisfaction with, the DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson tool. Usability testing methods, including think aloud and observations of user behavior, were used to identify challenges regarding the combined tool. Data collection included measurements of time on task; task ease; satisfaction with the answer; posttest feedback on likes, dislikes, and perceived reliability of the tool; and interest in recommending the tool to a colleague. RESULTS: On a 7-point Likert scale, pharmacists rated ease (mean 5.98, SD 1.38) and satisfaction (mean 6.31, SD 1.34) with the combined POCI tool higher than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (ease: mean 5.57, SD 1.64, and satisfaction: mean 5.82, SD 1.60). Pharmacists spent longer (mean 2 minutes, 26 seconds, SD 1 minute, 41 seconds) on average finding an answer to their question than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (mean 1 minute, 40 seconds, SD 1 minute, 23 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the tool performed well, but this usability evaluation identified multiple opportunities for improvement that would help inexperienced users.
