Abstract
Objective To analyze the impact of factors in healthcare delivery on the net benefit of triggering an Advanced Care Planning (ACP) workflow based on predictions of 12-month mortality.
Materials and Methods We built a predictive model of 12-month mortality using electronic health record data and evaluated the impact of healthcare delivery factors on the net benefit of triggering an ACP workflow based on the models’ predictions. Factors included non-clinical reasons that make ACP inappropriate, limited capacity for ACP, inability to follow up due to patient discharge, and availability of an outpatient workflow to follow up on missed cases. We also quantified the relative benefits of increasing capacity for inpatient ACP versus outpatient ACP.
Results Work capacity constraints and discharge timing can significantly reduce the net benefit of triggering the ACP workflow based on a model’s predictions. However, the reduction can be mitigated by creating an outpatient ACP workflow. Given limited resources to either add capacity for inpatient ACP versus developing outpatient ACP capability, the latter is likely to provide more benefit to patient care.
Discussion The benefit of using a predictive model for identifying patients for interventions is highly dependent on the capacity to execute the workflow triggered by the model. We provide a framework for quantifying the impact of healthcare delivery factors and work capacity constraints on achieved benefit.
Conclusion An analysis of the sensitivity of the net benefit realized by a predictive model triggered clinical workflow to various healthcare delivery factors is necessary for making predictive models useful in practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by the Stanford Medicine Program for AI in Healthcare, which is made possible by the Department of Medicine, a research grant from Google, an endowment from Debra and Mark Leslie, and innovations funds from Stanford Healthcare.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Stanford IRB protocol #42078
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are patient data, and hence not available publicly.