Variation in Serious Illness Communication among Surgical Patients Receiving Palliative Care

Abstract

Background:

Natural language processing (NLP), a form of computer-assisted data abstraction, rapidly identifies serious illness communication domains such as code-status confirmation and goals of care (GOC) discussions within free-text notes, using a codebook of phrases. Differences in the phrases associated with palliative care for patients with different types of illness are unknown.

Objective:

To compare communication of code-status clarification and GOC discussions between patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing palliative procedures and patients admitted with life-threatening trauma.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting/Subjects:

Patients with in-hospital admissions within two academic medical centers.

Measurements:

Sensitivity and specificity of NLP-identified communication domains compared with manual review.

Results:

Among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (n = 523), NLP identified code-status clarification in 54% of admissions and GOC discussions in 49% of admissions. The sensitivity and specificity for code-status clarification were 94% and 99% respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for a GOC discussion were 93% and 100%, respectively. Using the same codebook in patients with life-threatening trauma (n = 2093), NLP identified code-status clarification in 25.9% of admissions and GOC discussions in 6.3% of admissions. While NLP identification had 100% specificity, the sensitivity for code-status clarification and GOC discussion was reduced to 86% and 50%, respectively. Adding dynamic phrases such as “ongoing discussions” and phrases related to “family meetings” increased the sensitivity of the NLP codebook for code status to 98% and for GOC discussions to 100%.

Conclusions:

Communication of code status and GOC differ between patients with advanced cancer and those with life-threatening trauma. Recognition of these differences can aid in identification in patterns of palliative care delivery.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kelley

, Bollens-Lund

: Identifying the population with serious illness: The “Denominator” challenge. J Palliat Med, 2018; 21:S7–S16.

Hua

, Li

, Clancy

, et al.: Validation of the V66. 7 code for palliative care consultation in a single academic medical center. J Palliat Med, 2017; 20:372–377.

Belanger

, Loomer

, Teno

, et al.: Early utilization patterns of the new medicare procedure codes for advance care planning. JAMA Intern Med, 2019; 179:829–830.

Lilley

, Lindvall

, Lillemoe

, et al.: Measuring processes of care in palliative surgery: A novel approach using natural language processing. Ann Surg, 2018; 267:823–825.

American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program: ACS TQIP Palliative Care Best Practice Guidelines: https://www.facs.org/~/media/files/quality%20programs/trauma/tqip/palliative_care.ashx. 2018. (Last accessed June 1, 2018).

Greenspan

, Mclellan

, Greig

: Abbreviated injury scale and injury severity score: A scoring chart. J Trauma, 1985; 25:60–64.

Surveillance Epidemiology End Results Stat Fact Sheets: Pancreas: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/pancreas.html. 2018. (Last accessed October 19, 2018).

Ritt

, Ritt

, Sieber

, et al.: Comparing the predictive accuracy of frailty, comorbidity, and disability for mortality: A 1-year follow-up in patients hospitalized in geriatric wards. Clin Interv Aging, 2017; 12:293.

Joseph

, Pandit

, Zangbar

, et al.: Superiority of frailty over age in predicting outcomes among geriatric trauma patients: A prospective analysis. JAMA Surg, 2014; 149:766–772.

10.

Udelsman

, Lee

, Traeger

, et al.: Clinician-to-clinician communication of patient goals of care within a surgical intensive care unit. J Surg Res, 2019; 240:80–88.

11.

Sullivan

, Liu

, Corwin

, et al.: Learned helplessness among families and surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to medical, surgical, and trauma ICUs. Chest, 2012; 142:1440–1446.

12.

Long

, Clark

, Cook

: Surrogate decision making for patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Nurs, 2011; 18:204–212.

13.

Imai

, Kanero

, Masuda

: The relation between language, culture, and thought. Curr Opin Psychol, 2016; 8:70–77.

14.

Gleitman

, and Papafragou

: Relations between language and thought. In: Resiberg

(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 504–523

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB