J. Sanford Schwartz’s research while affiliated with University of Pennsylvania and other places

Despite acknowledging the value of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in identifying risk for sepsis-induced health deterioration in-hospitalized patients, the relationship between display features, decision maker characteristics, and recognition of risk by the clinical decision maker remains an understudied, yet promising, area. The objective of this study is to explore the relationship between CDSS display design and perceived clinical risk of in-hospital mortality associated with sepsis. The study utilized data collected through in-person experimental sessions with 91 physicians from the general medical and surgical floors who were recruited across 12 teaching hospitals within the United States. Results of descriptive and statistical analyses provided evidence supporting the impact of display configuration and clinical case severity on perceived risk associated with in-hospital mortality. Specifically, findings showed that a high level of information (represented by the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) score) and Figure display (as opposed to Text or baseline) increased awareness to recognizing the risk for in-hospital mortality of hospitalized sepsis patients. A CDSS display that synthesizes the optimal features associated with information level and design elements has the potential to enhance the quantification and communication of clinical risk in complex health conditions beyond sepsis.

Importance Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction worldwide. It remains unknown whether a ventral or dorsal surgical approach provides the best results. Objective To determine whether a ventral surgical approach compared with a dorsal surgical approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy improves patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial of patients aged 45 to 80 years with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy enrolled at 15 large North American hospitals from April 1, 2014, to March 30, 2018; final follow-up was April 15, 2020. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo ventral surgery (n = 63) or dorsal surgery (n = 100). Ventral surgery involved anterior cervical disk removal and instrumented fusion. Dorsal surgery involved laminectomy with instrumented fusion or open-door laminoplasty. Type of dorsal surgery (fusion or laminoplasty) was at surgeon’s discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 1-year change in the Short Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) score (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]; minimum clinically important difference = 5). Secondary outcomes included 1-year change in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, complications, work status, sagittal vertical axis, health resource utilization, and 1- and 2-year changes in the Neck Disability Index and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score. Results Among 163 patients who were randomized (mean age, 62 years; 80 [49%] women), 155 (95%) completed the trial at 1 year (80% at 2 years). All patients had surgery, but 5 patients did not receive their allocated surgery (ventral: n = 1; dorsal: n = 4). One-year SF-36 PCS mean improvement was not significantly different between ventral surgery (5.9 points) and dorsal surgery (6.2 points) (estimated mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −2.6 to 3.1; P = .86). Of 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. Rates of complications in the ventral and dorsal surgery groups, respectively, were 48% vs 24% (difference, 24%; 95% CI, 8.7%-38.5%; P = .002) and included dysphagia (41% vs 0%), new neurological deficit (2% vs 9%), reoperations (6% vs 4%), and readmissions within 30 days (0% vs 7%). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing cervical spinal surgery, a ventral surgical approach did not significantly improve patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year compared with outcomes after a dorsal surgical approach. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02076113

In caring for patients with sepsis, the current structure of electronic health record systems allows clinical providers access to raw patient data without imputation of its significance. There are a wide range of sepsis alerts in clinical care that act as clinical decision support tools to assist in early recognition of sepsis; however, there are serious shortcomings in existing health information technology for alerting providers in a meaningful way. Little work has been done to evaluate and assess existing alerts using implementation and process outcomes associated with health information technology displays, specifically evaluating clinician preference and performance. We developed graphical model displays of two popular sepsis scoring systems, quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment and Predisposition, Infection, Response, Organ Failure, using human factors principles grounded in user-centered and interaction design. Models will be evaluated in a larger research effort to optimize alert design to improve the collective awareness of high-risk populations and develop a relevant point-of-care clinical decision support system for sepsis.

Objectives. To describe the development of our Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) tool to aid patient-centered treatment decision among localized prostate cancer patients. Methods. We incorporated patient and provider experiences to develop a patient preference elicitation tool using adaptive conjoint analysis. Our patient-centered approach used systematic literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and provider focus groups to determine the treatment attributes most important for decision making. The resulting computer-based PreProCare tool was pilot tested in a clinical setting. Results. A systematic review of 56 articles published between 1995 and 2015 yielded survival, cancer recurrence, side effects, and complications as attributes of treatment options. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 50 prostate cancer survivors and 5 focus groups of providers. Patients reported anxiety, depression, treatment specifics, and caregiver burden as important for decision making. Providers identified clinical characteristics as important attribute. Input from stakeholders’ advisory group, physicians, and researchers helped finalize 15 attributes for our PreProCare preference assessment tool. Conclusion. The PreProCare tool was developed using a patient-centered approach and may be a feasible and acceptable preference clarification intervention for localized prostate cancer patients. The PreProCare tool may translate into higher participant engagement and self-efficacy, consistent with patients’ personal values.

Purpose: To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories. Results: Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups (P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months (P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group (P < .001). Conclusion: Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.

Background Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized under observation status have significant cost-sharing responsibilities under Medicare Part B. Prior work has demonstrated an association between increased cost-sharing and health care rationing among low-income Medicare beneficiaries. The objective of this study was to explore the potential impact of observation cost-sharing on future medical decision making of Medicare beneficiaries. Methods Single-center pilot cohort study. A convenience sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized under observation status care was surveyed. Results Out of 144 respondents, low-income beneficiaries were more likely to be concerned about the cost of their observation stay than higher-income respondents (70.7% vs29.3%, p = 0.015). If hospitalized under observation status again, there was a trend among low-income beneficiaries to request completion of their workup outside of the hospital (56.3% vs 43.8%), and to consider leaving against medical advice (AMA) (100% vs 0%), though these trends were not statistically significant (p = 0.30). Conclusion The results of this pilot study suggest that low-income Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized under observation status have greater concerns about their cost-sharing obligations than their higher income peers. Cost-sharing for observation care may have unintended consequences on utilization for low-income beneficiaries. Future studies should examine this potential relationship on a larger scale. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3982-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.