Looking Beyond Mortality Prediction: Primary Care Physician Views of Patients' Palliative Care Needs Predicted by a Machine Learning Tool.

OBJECTIVES: To assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) perception of the need for serious illness conversations (SIC) or other palliative care interventions in patients flagged by a machine learning tool for high 1-year mortality risk. METHODS: We surveyed PCPs from four Brigham and Women's Hospital primary care practice sites. Multiple mortality prediction algorithms were ensembled to assess adult patients of these PCPs who were either enrolled in the hospital's integrated care management program or had one of several chronic conditions. The patients were classified as high or low risk of 1-year mortality. A blinded survey had PCPs evaluate these patients for palliative care needs. We measured PCP and machine learning tool agreement regarding patients' need for an SIC/elevated risk of mortality. RESULTS: Of 66 PCPs, 20 (30.3%) participated in the survey. Out of 312 patients evaluated, 60.6% were female, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 69.3 (17.5) years, and a mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.80 (2.89). The machine learning tool identified 162 (51.9%) patients as high risk. Excluding deceased or unfamiliar patients, PCPs felt that an SIC was appropriate for 179 patients; the machine learning tool flagged 123 of these patients as high risk (68.7% concordance). For 105 patients whom PCPs deemed SIC unnecessary, the tool classified 83 as low risk (79.1% concordance). There was substantial agreement between PCPs and the tool (Gwet's agreement coefficient of 0.640). CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning mortality prediction tool offers promise as a clinical decision aid, helping clinicians pinpoint patients needing palliative care interventions.

Forms or Free-Text? Measuring Advance Care Planning Activity Using Electronic Health Records.

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions seek to guide future serious illness care. These discussions may be recorded in the electronic health record by documentation in clinical notes, structured forms and directives, and physician orders. Yet, most studies of ACP prevalence have only examined structured electronic health record elements and ignored data existing in notes. We sought to investigate the relative comprehensiveness and accuracy of ACP documentation from structured and unstructured electronic health record data sources. We evaluated structured and unstructured ACP documentation present in the electronic health records of 435 patients with cancer drawn from three separate healthcare systems. We extracted structured ACP documentation by manually annotating written documents and forms scanned into the electronic health record. We coded unstructured ACP documentation using a rule-based natural language processing software that identified ACP keywords within clinical notes and was subsequently reviewed for accuracy. The unstructured approach identified more instances of ACP documentation (238, 54.7% of patients) than the structured ACP approach (187, 42.9% of patients). Additionally, 16.6% of all patients with structured ACP documentation only had documents that were judged as misclassified, incomplete, blank, unavailable, or a duplicate of a previously entered erroneous document. ACP documents scanned into electronic health records represent a limited view of ACP activity. Research and measures of clinical practice with ACP should incorporate information from unstructured data.