“Yes, and …” Exploring the Future of Learning Analytics in Medical Education

This Conversations Starter article presents a selected research abstract from the 2017 Association of American Medical Colleges Northeastern Region Group on Educational Affairs annual spring meeting. The abstract is paired with the integrative commentary of three experts who shared their thoughts stimulated by the study. Commentators brainstormed “what\u27s next” with learning analytics in medical education, including advancements in interaction metrics and the use of interactivity analysis to deepen understanding of perceptual, cognitive, and social learning and transfer processes

Patient-Reported Morbidity Instruments: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Although comorbidities play an essential role in risk adjustment and outcomes measurement, there is little consensus regarding the best source of this data. The aim of this study was to identify general patient-reported morbidity instruments and their measurement properties. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science) from inception to March 2018. Articles focusing primarily on the development or subsequent validation of a patient-reported morbidity instrument were included. After including relevant articles, the measurement properties of each morbidity instrument were extracted by 2 investigators for narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 1005 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. The most widely assessed instruments were the Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index (n = 7), the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (n = 3), and the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment (n = 3). The most commonly included conditions were diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. Studies demonstrated substantial variability in item-level reliability versus the gold standard medical record review (κ range 0.66-0.86), meaning that the accuracy of the self-reported comorbidity data is dependent on the selected morbidity. Conclusions: The Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire were the most frequently cited instruments. Significant variability was observed in reliability per comorbid condition of patient-reported morbidity questionnaires. Further research is needed to determine whether patient-reported morbidity data should be used to bolster medical records data or serve as a stand-alone entity when risk adjusting observational outcomes data

Biomarker Panel for Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease

PURPOSE: To identify diagnostic and prognostic markers of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), the major cause of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a quantitative proteomics approach, we compared pooled plasma samples obtained at matched time points after HCT (median, 103 days) from 35 patients with cGVHD and 18 without cGVHD (data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD002762). Of 105 proteins showing at least a 1.25-fold difference in expression, 22 were selected on the basis of involvement in relevant pathways and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay availability. Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9 (CXCL9) and suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) also were measured on the basis of previously determined associations with GVHD. Concentrations of the four lead biomarkers were measured at or after diagnosis in plasma from two independent verification cohorts (n = 391) to determine their association with cGVHD. Their prognostic ability when measured at approximately day +100 after HCT was evaluated in plasma of a second verification cohort (n = 172). RESULTS: Of 24 proteins measured in the first verification cohort, nine proteins were associated with cGVHD, and only four (ST2, CXCL9, matrix metalloproteinase 3, and osteopontin) were necessary to compose a four-biomarker panel with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.89 and significant correlation with cGVHD diagnosis, cGVHD severity, and nonrelapse mortality. In a second verification cohort, this panel distinguished patients with cGVHD (AUC, 0.75), and finally, the panel measured at day +100 could predict cGVHD occurring within the next 3 months with an AUC of 0.67 and 0.79 without and with known clinical risk factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the biomarker panel measured at diagnosis or day +100 after HCT may allow patient stratification according to risk of cGVHD

Ambulatory cancer care electronic symptom self-reporting (ACCESS) for surgical patients: A randomised controlled trial protocol

Introduction An increasing proportion of cancer surgeries are ambulatory procedures requiring a stay of 1 day or less in the hospital. Providing patients and their caregivers with ongoing, real-time support after discharge aids delivery of high-quality postoperative care in this new healthcare environment. Despite abundant evidence that patient self-reporting of symptoms improves quality of care, the most effective way to monitor and manage this self-reported information is not known. Methods and analysis This is a two-armed randomised, controlled trial evaluating two approaches to the management of patient-reported data: (1) team monitoring, symptom monitoring by the clinical team, with nursing outreach if symptoms exceed normal limits, and (2) enhanced feedback, real-time feedback to patients about expected symptom severity, with patient-activated care as needed. Patients with breast, gynaecologic, urologic, and head and neck cancer undergoing ambulatory cancer surgery (n=2750) complete an electronic survey for up to 30 days after surgery that includes items from a validated instrument developed by the National Cancer Institute, the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Information provided to patients in the Enhanced Feedback group is procedure-specific and based on updated PRO-CTCAE data from previous patients. Qualitative interviews are also performed. The primary study outcomes assess unplanned emergency department visits and symptom-triggered interventions (eg, nursing calls and pain management referrals) within 30 days, and secondary outcomes assess the patient and caregiver experience (ie, patient engagement, patient anxiety and caregiver burden). Ethics and dissemination This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The relationships between the study team and stakeholders will be leveraged to disseminate study findings. Findings will be relevant in designing future coordinated care models targeting improved healthcare quality and patient experience. Trial registration number NCT03178045

A Randomized Phase II Crossover Study of Imatinib or Rituximab for Cutaneous Sclerosis after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Cutaneous sclerosis (CS) occurs in 20% of patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and can compromise mobility and quality of life

International mixed methods study protocol to develop a patient-reported outcome measure for all types of chronic wounds (the WOUND-Q)

INTRODUCTION: Most patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for chronic wounds are specific to a single wound type (eg, pressure ulcer) or part of the body. A barrier to outcome assessment in wound care and research is the lack of a rigorously designed PROM that can be used across wound types and locations. This mixed method study describes the protocol for an international collaboration to develop and validate a new PROM called the WOUND-Q for adults with chronic wounds. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In phase I, the qualitative approach of interpretive description is used to elicit concepts important to people with wounds regarding outcome. Participants from Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the USA are aged 18 years and older and have a wound that has lasted 3 months or longer. Interviews are digitally recorded, transcribed and coded. A conceptual framework and preliminary item pool are developed from the qualitative dataset. Draft scales are formed to cover important themes in the conceptual framework. These scales are refined using feedback from people with chronic wounds and wound care experts. After refinement, the scales are translated into Danish and Dutch, following rigorous methods, to prepare for an international field-test study. In phase II, data are collected in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the USA. An international sample of people with a large variety of chronic wounds complete the WOUND-Q. Rasch Measurement Theory analysis is used to identify the best subset of items to retain for each scale and to

Access to Reliable Information about Long-Term Prognosis Influences Clinical Opinion on Use of Lifesaving Intervention

Background: Decompressive craniectomy has been traditionally used as a lifesaving rescue treatment in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study assessed whether objective information on long-term prognosis would influence healthcare workers ’ opinion about using decompressive craniectomy as a lifesaving procedure for patients with severe TBI. Method: A two-part structured interview was used to assess the participants ’ opinion to perform decompressive craniectomy for three patients who had very severe TBI. Their opinion was assessed before and after knowing the predicted and observed risks of an unfavourable long-term neurological outcome in various scenarios. Results: Five hundred healthcare workers with a wide variety of clinical backgrounds participated. The participants were significantly more likely to recommend decompressive craniectomy for their patients than for themselves (mean difference in visual analogue scale [VAS] 21.5, 95 % confidence interval 21.3 to 21.6), especially when the next of kin of the patients requested intervention. Patients ’ preferences were more similar to patients who had advance directives. The participants’ preferences to perform the procedure for themselves and their patients both significantly reduced after knowing the predicted risks of unfavourable outcomes, and the changes in attitude were consistent across different specialties, amount of experience in caring for similar patients, religious backgrounds, and positions in the specialty of the participants. Conclusions: Access to objective information on risk of an unfavourable long-term outcome influenced healthcare workers