Sophie E Ack1, Shamelia Y Loiseau1,2, Guneeti Sharma1, Joshua N Goldstein3, India A Lissak1, Sarah M Duffy1, Edilberto Amorim4, Paul Vespa5, Joseph Randall Moorman6, Xiao Hu7, Gilles Clermont8, Soojin Park9, Rishikesan Kamaleswaran10, Brandon P Foreman11, Eric S Rosenthal12. 1. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 7. School of Nursing and Center for Data Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. Departments of Neurology and Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 10. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 11. Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 12. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. erosenthal@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the feasibility and discriminability of recently proposed Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care (Neurocritical Care Society) and Quality Indicators for Traumatic Brain Injury (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI; CENTER-TBI) extracted from electronic health record (EHR) flowsheet data. METHODS: At three centers within the Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards (CHoRUS) for Equitable AI consortium, we examined consecutive neurocritical care admissions exceeding 24 h (03/2015-02/2020) and evaluated the feasibility, discriminability, and site-specific variation of five clinical performance measures and quality indicators: (1) intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) within 24 h when indicated, (2) ICPM latency when initiated within 24 h, (3) frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments, (4) intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCd) initiation within 24 h, and (5) latency to IPCd application. We additionally explored associations between delayed IPCd initiation and codes for venous thromboembolism documented using the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) system. Median (interquartile range) statistics are reported. Kruskal-Wallis tests were measured for differences across centers, and Dunn statistics were reported for between-center differences. RESULTS: A total of 14,985 admissions met inclusion criteria. ICPM was documented in 1514 (10.1%), neurologic assessments in 14,635 (91.1%), and IPCd application in 14,175 (88.5%). ICPM began within 24 h for 1267 (83.7%), with site-specific latency differences among sites 1-3, respectively, (0.54 h [2.82], 0.58 h [1.68], and 2.36 h [4.60]; p < 0.001). The frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments also varied by site (17.4 per day [5.97], 8.4 per day [3.12], and 15.3 per day [8.34]; p < 0.001) and diurnally (6.90 per day during daytime hours vs. 5.67 per day at night, p < 0.001). IPCds were applied within 24 h for 12,863 (90.7%) patients meeting clinical eligibility (excluding those with EHR documentation of limiting injuries, actively documented as ambulating, or refusing prophylaxis). In-hospital venous thromboembolism varied by site (1.23%, 1.55%, and 5.18%; p < 0.001) and was associated with increased IPCd latency (overall, 1.02 h [10.4] vs. 0.97 h [5.98], p = 0.479; site 1, 2.25 h [10.27] vs. 1.82 h [7.39], p = 0.713; site 2, 1.38 h [5.90] vs. 0.80 h [0.53], p = 0.216; site 3, 0.40 h [16.3] vs. 0.35 h [11.5], p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic health record-derived reporting of neurocritical care performance measures is feasible and demonstrates site-specific variation. Future efforts should examine whether performance or documentation drives these measures, what outcomes are associated with performance, and whether EHR-derived measures of performance measures and quality indicators are modifiable.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the feasibility and discriminability of recently proposed Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care (Neurocritical Care Society) and Quality Indicators for Traumatic Brain Injury (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI; CENTER-TBI) extracted from electronic health record (EHR) flowsheet data. METHODS: At three centers within the Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards (CHoRUS) for Equitable AI consortium, we examined consecutive neurocritical care admissions exceeding 24 h (03/2015-02/2020) and evaluated the feasibility, discriminability, and site-specific variation of five clinical performance measures and quality indicators: (1) intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) within 24 h when indicated, (2) ICPM latency when initiated within 24 h, (3) frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments, (4) intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCd) initiation within 24 h, and (5) latency to IPCd application. We additionally explored associations between delayed IPCd initiation and codes for venous thromboembolism documented using the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) system. Median (interquartile range) statistics are reported. Kruskal-Wallis tests were measured for differences across centers, and Dunn statistics were reported for between-center differences. RESULTS: A total of 14,985 admissions met inclusion criteria. ICPM was documented in 1514 (10.1%), neurologic assessments in 14,635 (91.1%), and IPCd application in 14,175 (88.5%). ICPM began within 24 h for 1267 (83.7%), with site-specific latency differences among sites 1-3, respectively, (0.54 h [2.82], 0.58 h [1.68], and 2.36 h [4.60]; p < 0.001). The frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments also varied by site (17.4 per day [5.97], 8.4 per day [3.12], and 15.3 per day [8.34]; p < 0.001) and diurnally (6.90 per day during daytime hours vs. 5.67 per day at night, p < 0.001). IPCds were applied within 24 h for 12,863 (90.7%) patients meeting clinical eligibility (excluding those with EHR documentation of limiting injuries, actively documented as ambulating, or refusing prophylaxis). In-hospital venous thromboembolism varied by site (1.23%, 1.55%, and 5.18%; p < 0.001) and was associated with increased IPCd latency (overall, 1.02 h [10.4] vs. 0.97 h [5.98], p = 0.479; site 1, 2.25 h [10.27] vs. 1.82 h [7.39], p = 0.713; site 2, 1.38 h [5.90] vs. 0.80 h [0.53], p = 0.216; site 3, 0.40 h [16.3] vs. 0.35 h [11.5], p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic health record-derived reporting of neurocritical care performance measures is feasible and demonstrates site-specific variation. Future efforts should examine whether performance or documentation drives these measures, what outcomes are associated with performance, and whether EHR-derived measures of performance measures and quality indicators are modifiable.
Authors: Andre L Holder; Supreeth P Shashikumar; Gabriel Wardi; Timothy G Buchman; Shamim Nemati Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.598