1 department of biomedical informatics university of utah practice-based evidence: a new paradigm...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Department of Biomedical Informatics Department of Biomedical Informatics University of UtahUniversity of Utah
Practice-Based Evidence:Practice-Based Evidence:A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness ResearchA New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research
October 23, 2014October 23, 2014
byby
Susan D. Horn, Ph.DSusan D. Horn, Ph.DInstitute for Clinical Outcomes ResearchInstitute for Clinical Outcomes Research
699 East South Temple, Suite 215 699 East South Temple, Suite 215 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
801-466-5595 (V) 801-718-9149 (C)801-466-5595 (V) 801-718-9149 (C)[email protected] [email protected] www.isisicor.com
![Page 2: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• How best to treat the patient in your office right now?
• “Scientific studies” (i.e., RCTs) provide imperfect guidance
• Clinical medicine is untidy; innumerable variables describe patients, providers, practices, and outcomes
• Must consider clinical variability of patient populations, intervention combinations, and outcomes
History of the Problem
2
![Page 3: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. Present examples of findings from PBE studies in stroke, traumatic brain injury, and RSV infections in children
2. Describe PBE study designs used in these examples and compare PBE to other designs used in CER
Objectives of Presentation
3
![Page 4: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation StudyPost-Stroke Rehabilitation Study
2001 – 2003; 1,161 patients2001 – 2003; 1,161 patients
PBE study designed to discover what combinations of PBE study designed to discover what combinations of
medical devices, therapies, medications, feeding medical devices, therapies, medications, feeding
approaches, and their interactions worked best for approaches, and their interactions worked best for
specific types of stroke patients treated in real-specific types of stroke patients treated in real-
world practices.world practices.
Study Objectives
![Page 5: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
• PhysiciansPhysicians
• NursesNurses
• Social WorkersSocial Workers
• PsychologistsPsychologists
• Physical TherapistsPhysical Therapists
• Occupational TherapistsOccupational Therapists
• Recreation TherapistsRecreation Therapists
• Speech/Language Speech/Language PathologistsPathologists
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation StudyPost-Stroke Rehabilitation Study
Trans-Disciplinary Project Clinical TeamTrans-Disciplinary Project Clinical Team
![Page 6: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation StudyPost-Stroke Rehabilitation Study
Examples of OUTCOME VARIABLESExamples of OUTCOME VARIABLES
• Change in FIM scoreChange in FIM score
• Length of rehab stayLength of rehab stay
• Discharge disposition Discharge disposition
• ContractureContracture
• DeathDeath
• Deep vein thrombosisDeep vein thrombosis
• Major bleedingMajor bleeding
• Pulmonary embolismPulmonary embolism
• Pressure ulcerPressure ulcer
• PneumoniaPneumonia
![Page 7: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation StudyPost-Stroke Rehabilitation Study
Examples of PROCESS VARIABLESExamples of PROCESS VARIABLES
• MedicationsMedications
• Nutritional processNutritional process
• Pain managementPain management
• Time to first rehabTime to first rehab
• Intensity, frequency, Intensity, frequency, and duration of PT and duration of PT interventionsinterventions
• Intensity, frequency, Intensity, frequency, and duration of OT and duration of OT interventionsinterventions
• Intensity, frequency, Intensity, frequency, and duration of SLP and duration of SLP interventionsinterventions
• Other therapy Other therapy interventions and interventions and dosagedosage
![Page 8: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Post-Stroke Physical Therapy FormPost-Stroke Physical Therapy Form
Patient ID:
S a m p l eTherapist:
Date of Therapy Session:
/ /
I N T E R V E N T I O N C O D E SNeuromuscular Interventions:01. Balance training02. Postural awareness03. Motor learning04. PNF05. NDT06. Gait with body weight support07. Involved upper extremity addressed08. Constrained induced movement therapyMusculoskeletal Interventions:09. Strengthening10. Mobilization11. PROM/Stretching12. Manual Therapy13. Motor ControlCardiopulmonary Intervention:14. Breathing15. Aerobic/Conditioning exercisesCognitive/Perceptual/Sensory Interventions:16. Cognitive training17. Perceptual training18. Visual training19. Sensory trainingEducation Interventions:20. Patient21. Family/Caregiver22. StaffEquipment Interventions:23. Prescription/Selection24. Application25. Fabrication
26. OrderingModality Interventions:27. Electrical Stimulation28. Biofeedback29. UltrasoundPet Therapy:30. Use of dog31. Use of other animalAssistive Device:32. Ankle dorsi flex assist33. Cane - Large base34. Cane - Small base35. Cane - Straight36. Crutches - Axillary37. Crutches - Forearm38. Crutches - Small base forearm39. Dowel40. Grocery cart41. Hemirail42. Ironing board43. KAFO44. Lite gait
45. Mirror46. Parallel bars
Pre-Functional Activity
Duration of Activity:Enter in 5 minute increments.
Interventions:Enter one intervention code per group of boxes.
Bed Mobility
Wheelchair Mobility
Sitting
Transfers
Sit-to-Stand
Pre-gait
Gait
Advanced Gait
Community Mobility
Intervention not related
Intervention #2 not related
Co-Treat:
No. of minutes:
47. Platform (parallel bars or FWW)
48. Standing frame49. Steps (various heights)50. Step ladder51. Swedish knee cage52. Swiss ball53. Tray table54. Walker - FWW55. Walker - Hemiwalker56. Walker - Rising Star57. Walker - Standard58. WheelchairOther:
59.
Area Involved/non-functional:60. Upper Extremity61. Lower Extremity62. Trunk63. Head/Neck
Disciplines:
Patient Assessment:Formal Assessment (initial, re-evaluation, discharge): minutes
Home Evaluation: minutes
Work Site Evaluation: minutes
Group Physical Therapy Time:PT Group/Dovetail: minutes
Patients Therapists Assistants
Enter the number of each that participated in the Group PT:
Aides/Techs Students
Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Activities
Physical Therapy Time:PT Assistant
minutes
PT Aide/Tech
minutes
PT Student
minutes
to functional activity
to functional activity
Time session begins:
:
Physical Therapist
minutes
6649
![Page 9: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Traumatic Brain InjuryTraumatic Brain Injury
What treatments are associated with better What treatments are associated with better outcomes at routcomes at rehabilitationehabilitation discharge for discharge for patients with traumatic brain injury?patients with traumatic brain injury?
9
![Page 10: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Children Hospitalized with RSVChildren Hospitalized with RSV
What treatments are associated with better What treatments are associated with better outcomes for children hospitalized with RSV outcomes for children hospitalized with RSV infections, controlling for child differences? infections, controlling for child differences?
![Page 11: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
We have Efficacy trials that determine whether an intervention produces a specified result(s) under well controlled conditions in a selected population – includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
We need Effectiveness trials that measure outcomes of an intervention under “real world” conditions in an unselected clinical population. Hypotheses and study designs for an effectiveness trial are formulated based on conditions of routine clinical practice and on outcomes essential for clinical decisions.
What We Have and What We Need
11
![Page 12: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Databases for Effectiveness Databases for Effectiveness TrialsTrials
• RCT databasesRCT databases
• Large claims databases, Large claims databases, e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, CDCe.g., Medicare, Medicaid, CDC
• HMO or VA databases from claims and electronic HMO or VA databases from claims and electronic medical recordsmedical records
• Specific condition registries, such as arthritis Specific condition registries, such as arthritis registryregistry
• Practice-based evidence study registriesPractice-based evidence study registries PBE studies overcome limitations of RCTs (that limit patient types and PBE studies overcome limitations of RCTs (that limit patient types and
treatments)treatments)
More detailed patient, process, and outcome evaluation than is More detailed patient, process, and outcome evaluation than is possible with traditional registries or large claims datasetspossible with traditional registries or large claims datasets
![Page 13: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
RCTRCT Databases Databases for Comparative Effectiveness Researchfor Comparative Effectiveness Research
• RCT databases RCT databases – gold standard for efficacy and value – gold standard for efficacy and value of interventionsof interventions
• Advantages includeAdvantages include::
High internal validityHigh internal validity
Causal inferences can be made since patients with Causal inferences can be made since patients with knownknown confounders are excluded and randomization confounders are excluded and randomization eliminates eliminates unknownunknown confounders confounders
![Page 14: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
RCTRCT Databases Databases for Comparative Effectiveness Research for Comparative Effectiveness Research (cont)(cont)
• Limitations includeLimitations include::
Small sample sizes – too small to detect uncommon risksSmall sample sizes – too small to detect uncommon risks
Follow-up periods too short to assess long-term Follow-up periods too short to assess long-term benefits/risksbenefits/risks
Higher-risk patients are excluded typically; limited Higher-risk patients are excluded typically; limited external validityexternal validity
Level of monitoring is more rigorousLevel of monitoring is more rigorous than done in routine than done in routine practicepractice
High rates of treatment discontinuationHigh rates of treatment discontinuation
![Page 15: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Non-RCT DatabasesNon-RCT Databases for Comparative Effectiveness Research for Comparative Effectiveness Research
• Advantages includeAdvantages include::
Cover thousands to millions of people including minority and elderlyCover thousands to millions of people including minority and elderly
Ability to provide treatment exposures and adverse events, including Ability to provide treatment exposures and adverse events, including hospitalizations and mortality, over extended periods of timehospitalizations and mortality, over extended periods of time
Provide population and subpopulation-based estimates for various Provide population and subpopulation-based estimates for various outcomesoutcomes
Better suited to evaluate safety as opposed to effectivenessBetter suited to evaluate safety as opposed to effectiveness
Many exist in electronic form so some data elements may be exported Many exist in electronic form so some data elements may be exported for use in comparative effectiveness research analysesfor use in comparative effectiveness research analyses
![Page 16: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Non-RCT DatabasesNon-RCT Databases for Comparative Effectiveness Research for Comparative Effectiveness Research
• Limitations includeLimitations include::
Restricted ability to capture patients’ severity of illness, Restricted ability to capture patients’ severity of illness, functional and cognitive status, health behaviors (other than functional and cognitive status, health behaviors (other than smoking), pain, etc. These can be important unmeasured smoking), pain, etc. These can be important unmeasured confoundersconfounders
Restricted access for CER unless researcher is part of Restricted access for CER unless researcher is part of organization that owns the dataorganization that owns the data
Often required variables are in text format so are not Often required variables are in text format so are not exportableexportable
![Page 17: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
• Minimizing Bias in drawing conclusions from existing databases
• Capturing variation in patients
• Capturing variation in interventions/ intervention combinations
• Capturing variation in outcomes
Issues to Address in CER Studies
17
![Page 18: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Basic Problem in Basic Problem in Non-Randomized Studies Non-Randomized Studies
• Confounding by IndicationConfounding by Indication« Therapies are administered in non-random fashionTherapies are administered in non-random fashion
« Prognostic characteristics influence therapy usedPrognostic characteristics influence therapy used
« Recipients of therapy are at high risk for outcomesRecipients of therapy are at high risk for outcomes
« Users differ from non-users in key respectsUsers differ from non-users in key respects
18
![Page 19: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Propensity Score Theory to Address Propensity Score Theory to Address Confounding by IndicationConfounding by Indication
• PS is a multivariable scoring method that collapses PS is a multivariable scoring method that collapses multiple multiple observedobserved predictors of treatment into a single predictors of treatment into a single value (a probability score)value (a probability score)» PS represents the probability that a subject with PS represents the probability that a subject with
given characteristics receives specified treatmentgiven characteristics receives specified treatment» Used to: match, stratify, or modelUsed to: match, stratify, or model» Assumption is by matching on propensity score, it Assumption is by matching on propensity score, it
removes confounding by components included in the removes confounding by components included in the scorescore
» Sensitive to unobserved predictor variables such as Sensitive to unobserved predictor variables such as missing severity of illness measuresmissing severity of illness measures
19
![Page 20: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Overcoming Selection Bias/ Overcoming Selection Bias/ Confounding by IndicationConfounding by Indication
• Statistical adjustments:Statistical adjustments:–MatchingMatching–Propensity score or instrumental variablesPropensity score or instrumental variables–Covariate adjustments (Severity of Illness)Covariate adjustments (Severity of Illness)
• Ongoing debate about the adequacy of Ongoing debate about the adequacy of adjustmentsadjustments
20
![Page 21: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
What makes this approach What makes this approach different? Why do a PBE study?different? Why do a PBE study?
PBE Methodology
21
![Page 22: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
History of PBEHistory of PBE
• Started with development of Comprehensive Severity Index (CSI) Started with development of Comprehensive Severity Index (CSI) to measure risk-adjusted outcomes at The Johns Hopkins to measure risk-adjusted outcomes at The Johns Hopkins HospitalHospital
• CSI found to explain up to 50% of the variation in outcomes of CSI found to explain up to 50% of the variation in outcomes of cost, LOS, mortalitycost, LOS, mortality
• Found patients with the similar CSI scores for a condition could Found patients with the similar CSI scores for a condition could have very different treatmentshave very different treatments
• This stimulated development of PBE study design to account forThis stimulated development of PBE study design to account for patient heterogeneitypatient heterogeneity treatment heterogeneitytreatment heterogeneity outcome heterogeneityoutcome heterogeneity
![Page 23: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
• Both patients and providers report data
• Data come from existing EMR with standardized structured data elements about patient characteristics, treatments, processes, patient-reported data, and multiple outcomes
• Data are part of routine documentation, so not an ‘add-on’
• Rapid patient accrual since documentation is standard of care
• Longitudinal and ongoing
CER Issues Addressed Using PBE
23
![Page 24: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
• Patient comparability is addressed with the Comprehensive Severity Index (CSI): disease-specific, physiologic-based, >2,200 criteria, >5,500 disease-specific criteria sets
• CSI addresses confounding by indication and selection bias
• Database includes all treatments with date/dose/intensity/route. Many details collected in point-of care (POC) documents.
• Can assess drug and non-drug combination therapies
• Findings of PBE-CER are more readily translated into practice
CER Issues Addressed Using PBE (cont)
24
![Page 25: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Components of Practice-Based Evidence Designs
Process Factors• Patient Education and Management Strategies• Interventions and surgeries • Medications
Patient Factors• Psychosocial/demographic Factors• Co-occurring Conditions• Severity of Illness and Injury• Genetic informationGenetic information• Measured at Multiple Points in Time
Primary Outcomes• Clinical Clinical • Health StatusHealth Status• FunctionalFunctional• Cost/LOS/EncountersCost/LOS/Encounters• Discharge DispositionDischarge Disposition• Post-discharge Outcomes
Standardize documentation for :
Control for:
Measure:
25
![Page 26: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
7 Signature Features of 7 Signature Features of PBE StudiesPBE Studies
1.1. Hypotheses can be focused or broadHypotheses can be focused or broad
2.2. All interventions are considered to determine the All interventions are considered to determine the relative contribution of each relative contribution of each
3.3. Broad patient selection criteria maximize Broad patient selection criteria maximize generalizability and external validitygeneralizability and external validity
4.4. Detailed characterization of the patient by robust Detailed characterization of the patient by robust measures of patient severity, genetic information, measures of patient severity, genetic information, and functional statusand functional status
26
![Page 27: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
7 Signature Features of 7 Signature Features of PBE StudiesPBE Studies
5.5. Patient differences controlled statistically rather than Patient differences controlled statistically rather than through randomization through randomization
6.6. Facility and clinical/patient buy-in through use of Facility and clinical/patient buy-in through use of trans-disciplinary Clinical Practice Teamtrans-disciplinary Clinical Practice Team
7.7. Strength of evidence built through the research processStrength of evidence built through the research process
PBE findings are more PBE findings are more generalizablegeneralizable and and transportabletransportable than RCT findingsthan RCT findings 27
![Page 28: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
PBE Study HallmarksPBE Study Hallmarks
• Decisions are made by Decisions are made by front-line clinicians front-line clinicians vs. vs. researchersresearchers
• ““Bottom-upBottom-up” vs. “Top-down” approach” vs. “Top-down” approach
• Guidance from researchers (scientific Guidance from researchers (scientific advisory board) and patient experienceadvisory board) and patient experience
28
![Page 29: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
PBE Study HallmarksPBE Study Hallmarks
–Non-experimentaNon-experimentall: Follows outcomes of : Follows outcomes of treatments actually prescribedtreatments actually prescribed
–InclusiveInclusive: Uses patient populations undergoing : Uses patient populations undergoing routine clinical careroutine clinical care
–PragmaticPragmatic: Uses actual clinical outcomes: Uses actual clinical outcomes
–Lower CostLower Cost than RCTsthan RCTs
–FasterFaster than RCTsthan RCTs29
![Page 30: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Practice-Based Evidence Study DesignPractice-Based Evidence Study Design
• High external validityHigh external validity
- Includes essentially all patients with specific Includes essentially all patients with specific condition or in specific setting(s)condition or in specific setting(s)
- Captures confounders that could affect relevant Captures confounders that could affect relevant treatment responses treatment responses
- Reduces accidental associations between Reduces accidental associations between treatments and outcomestreatments and outcomes
30
![Page 31: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Components of Practice-Based Evidence Designs
Process Factors•Patient Education and Management Strategies•Interventions and surgeries •Medications
Patient Factors•Psychosocial/demographic Factors•Co-occurring Conditions•Severity of Illness and Injury•Measured at Multiple Points in Time
Primary Outcomes•Change in CSI/discharge CSI•Discharge Disposition•Length of Stay•Post-discharge Outcomes
Standardize documentation for :
Control for:
Measure:
31
![Page 32: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Examples of Severity Systems to address Examples of Severity Systems to address Selection Bias/Confounding by IndicationSelection Bias/Confounding by Indication
Diagnostic/Procedure Based Systems• Clinical definition of severity
• Body Systems Count • Charlson Comorbidity Index (1-yr death)
• 3 Disease Staging (hosp death)• Patient Management Categories (hosp death)• Resource definition of severity
• Case Mix Groups[CMGs] (rehab LOS, $)• Acuity Index Method (LOS)
• APR DRGs (hosp $)• Patient Management Categories (hosp $)• Refined DRGs (hosp LOS, $)
Physiologic/Clinically Based Systems
• 2 Apache II & III (ICU death)
• 2 Medisgroups (Atlas) (hosp death)
CSI®® 32
![Page 33: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Comprehensive Severity Index (CSIComprehensive Severity Index (CSI®®)) used to account for selection bias or confounding by indicationused to account for selection bias or confounding by indication
• Severity defined as “Severity defined as “physiologic complexity physiologic complexity presented to medical personnel due presented to medical personnel due to the extent and interactions of a patient’s diseasesto the extent and interactions of a patient’s diseases””
• Disease-specificDisease-specific: : 5,500 disease-specific groups; over 2,200 distinct criteria5,500 disease-specific groups; over 2,200 distinct criteria . . ICD-9 codes trigger disease-specific patient signs, symptoms, and physical findings used to ICD-9 codes trigger disease-specific patient signs, symptoms, and physical findings used to score disease-specific and overall severity levelsscore disease-specific and overall severity levels
• No treatments usedNo treatments used as criteriaas criteria
• ComprehensiveComprehensive (all diseases)(all diseases)
• Clinically credibleClinically credible: computes disease-specific and overall severity levels: computes disease-specific and overall severity levels
• Can measure severity at Can measure severity at multiple time points multiple time points
• Allows statistical comparison Allows statistical comparison of interventions without confounding by severity of of interventions without confounding by severity of
illnessillness33
![Page 34: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
CSI Severity IndicatorsCSI Severity Indicators
Physiological signs and symptoms of a Physiological signs and symptoms of a diseasedisease- Vital signs- Vital signs
- Laboratory values- Laboratory values
- Radiology findings- Radiology findings
- Other physical findings- Other physical findings
Severity indicators are specific to each Severity indicators are specific to each disease based on ICD-9-CM codingdisease based on ICD-9-CM coding
![Page 35: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Pneumonia Criteria SetPneumonia Criteria Set480.0-486; 506.3; 507.0-507.1; 516.8; 517.1; 518.3; 518.5; 668.00-668.04; 997.3; 112.4; 136.3; 055.1480.0-486; 506.3; 507.0-507.1; 516.8; 517.1; 518.3; 518.5; 668.00-668.04; 997.3; 112.4; 136.3; 055.1
CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 Cardiovascular
pulse rate 51-100; ST segment changes-EKG; systolic BP 90mmHg
pulse rate 100-129; 41-50; PACs, PAT, PVCs-EKG; systolic BP 80-89mmHg
pulse rate 130; 31-40; systolic BP 61-79mmHg
pulse rate 30; asystole, VT, VF, V flutter; systolic BP 60 mmHg
Fever 96.8-100.4 and/or chills 100.5-102.0 oral; 94.0-96.7
102.1-103.9; 90.1-93.9 and/or rigors
104.0 90.0
Labs ABGs Hematology
pH 7.35-7.45
pO2 61mmHg
WBC 4.5-11.0K/cu mm; bands <10%;
pH >7.46 7.25-7.34
WBC 11.1-20.0K/cu mm; 2.4-4.4K/cu mm; bands 10-20%
pH 7.10-7.24
pO2 51-60mmHg WBC 20.1-30.0K/cu mm; 1.0-2.3K/cu mm; bands 21-40%
pH 7.09;
pO2 50mmHg
WBC 30.1K/cu mm; 1.0K/cu mm; bands 40%
Neuro Status
Lowest Glasgow coma score
12
chronic confusion
9-11
acute confusion
6-8
unresponsive
5
Radiology Chest X-Ray or CT Scan
infiltrate and/or consolidation in 1 lobe; pleural effusion
infiltrate and/or consolidation in >1 but 3 lobes;
infiltrate and/or consolidation in >3 lobes; cavitation or lung necrosis
Respiratory
white, thin, mucoid sputum
dyspnea on exertion; stridor; rales 50%/3 lobes; decreased breath sounds 50%/3 lobes; positive for fremitus; stridor hemoptysis NOS; blood tinged or purulent or frothy sputum
cyanosis present dyspnea at rest; rales >50%/ 3 lobes; decreased breath sounds >50%/ 3 lobes frank hemoptysis
apnea absent breath sounds >50%/ 3 lobes
Copyright 2006. Susan D. Horn. All rights reserved. Do not quote, copy or cite without permission.
![Page 36: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36Copyright 2006. Susan D. Horn. All rights reserved. Do not quote, copy or cite without permission.
Category Indicator 1 2 3 4Digestive Nausea/Vomiting No nausea or vomiting
Vomiting PersistentVomiting
N/A
Neurology Neurological Status No unresponsiveness or confusion
Chronic confusion Acute confusion Unresponsive
GCS GCS>=12 GCS=9-11 GCS=6-8 GCS<=5Seizures Focal tremors/Seizures NOS Focal/Petit Mal Seizures Grand Mal/Status
Epilepticus NOSStatus Epilepticus w/ >2 Hrs Drug therapy
Pupil Reaction Normal Pupil Reaction Unilateral Pupil Dilation Bilateral Pupil Dilation
Coordination/Balance Unsteady on Feet/Clumsiness NOS
Dizziness/Mild to Moderate Ataxia
Severe Ataxia N/A
Sensation alteration Sensation Alteration NOS Complete loss of Sensation/Parathesia or Dysesthesia
N/A N/A
Aphasia No Aphasia Mild Aphasia Moderate/Severe Aphasia Global Aphasia Dysarthria No/mild Dysarthria Dysphonia Dysarthria Incomprehensible Speech No SpeechDysphagia Dysphagia NOS Unable to swallow liquids Unable to swallow solids N/A
Pain Headache Headache NOS, No Headache Moderate/severe headache Intense headache N/A
Stroke Criteria SetStroke Criteria Set page 1page 1
430-438.9, 648.6-648.64, 671.5-671.54, 674-674.04 430-438.9, 648.6-648.64, 671.5-671.54, 674-674.04
![Page 37: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37Copyright 2006. Susan D. Horn. All rights reserved. Do not quote, copy or cite without permission.
Category Indicator 1 2 3 4
Respiratory Dyspenea Breathing Difficulties NOS Dyspnea on exertion Dyspnea at Rest N/A
Rales No Rales Rales <=50% /<3 Lobes Rales >=50% />=3 lobes N/A
Breath Sounds No decreased breath sounds Decreased Breath in <=50% / <3 lobes
Decreased Breath in >=50% />=3 lobes
Absent Breath sounds in >50% />=3 lobes
Apnea No Apnea N/A N/A Apnea
Senses Perceptual impairment
No perceptual impairment Chronic Perceptual impairment requiring external/internal cues
Acute Decline in perceptual impairment
N/A
Vitals Highest Systolic BP <=180 mm Hg 181-219 mm Hg >=220 mm Hg N/AHighest Diastolic BP <=99 mm Hg 100-109 mm Hg >=110 mm Hg N/A
Lowest Systolic BP >=90 mm Hg 80-89 mm Hg 61-79 mm Hg <=60 mm Hg
Highest Pulse rate <=99 Beats/min 100-129 Beats/min >=130 Beats/min N/A
Lowest Pulse Rate >=51 Beats/min 41-50 Beats/min 31-40 Beats/min <=30 Beats/min
Highest Temp <=100.4 Oral F >=100.5 Oral F N/A N/A
Lowest Temp >=96.8 Oral F <=96.7 Oral F N/A N/A
O2 Saturation No supplemental Oxygen, O2 Sat >= 90
Oxygen 22-50%, able to obtain O2 Sat >=90
Oxygen> 50% and able to Obtain O2 Sat >= 90% or Oxygen 22-50% and unable to obtain O2 sat >=90%
Oxygen >50% and unable to obtain O2 Sat >=90
EKG Rhythm No EKG Ectopy, Non sustained Ventricular Tachycardia
Bigeminy/ trigeminy/Quadrigeminy/Atrial fibrillation
6 PVCs/min, SVT Junctional ectopic tachycardia
Runs of ventricular tachycardia
Stroke Criteria Set Stroke Criteria Set page 2page 2 430-438.9, 648.6-648.64, 671.5-671.54, 674-674.04 430-438.9, 648.6-648.64, 671.5-671.54, 674-674.04
![Page 38: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation StudyPost-Stroke Rehabilitation Study
2001 – 2003; 1,161 patients2001 – 2003; 1,161 patients
PBE study designed to discover what combinations of PBE study designed to discover what combinations of
medical devices, therapies, medications, feeding medical devices, therapies, medications, feeding
approaches, and their interactions worked best for approaches, and their interactions worked best for
specific types of stroke patients treated in real-specific types of stroke patients treated in real-
world practices.world practices.
Study Objectives
![Page 39: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Outcome: Discharge Motor FIMOutcome: Discharge Motor FIMSevere Stroke – Full Stay
GeneralGeneral AssessmentAssessment
GeneralGeneralInterventionsInterventions
MedicationsMedications
PT PT InterventionsInterventions
– Age
– Black race
+ Mild motor impairment
+ Admission Motor FIM
+ Admission Cognitive FIM
– Days onset to rehab
+ Enteral feeding
– – Anti-ParkinsonsAnti-Parkinsons
– – ModafinilModafinil
–– Old SSRIsOld SSRIs
++ Atypical antipsychotics Atypical antipsychotics
– Formal assessment
– Bed mobility
+ Gait
+ Advanced gait
OT OT InterventionsInterventions
+ Home management
SLP SLP InterventionsInterventions
– Swallowing
– Orientation
+ Reading comprehension
![Page 40: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Outcome: Discharge Motor FIMOutcome: Discharge Motor FIMSevere Stroke–1st 3 hour Therapy block only
GeneralGeneral AssessmentAssessment
GeneralGeneralInterventionsInterventions
MedicationsMedications
PT PT InterventionsInterventions
– Age – Severe motor impairment+ Admission Motor FIM+ Admission Cog. FIM+ No Dysphagia+ Neurotropic Impairments treated with meds
– Days onset to rehab
+ LOS
+ Enteral feeding
– – Other AntidepressantOther Antidepressant
–– Old SSRIsOld SSRIs
++ Atypical antipsychotics Atypical antipsychotics
– Bed mobility time in 1time in 1stst 3 hrs 3 hrs
+ Gait time in 1in 1stst 3 3 hrshrs
+ Advanced gait time in 1time in 1stst 3 hrs 3 hrs
OT OT InterventionsInterventions
+ Home management
SLP SLP InterventionsInterventions
Horn et al., Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86(12 Supplement 2):S101-S114
![Page 41: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Policy Changes from Stroke PBE Study
Early Rehabilitation Admission – get patient into
rehabilitation as soon as possible after stroke onset;
possibly start in Neuro ICU
Early gait in PT – start gait as soon as possible after rehab admission; put patient in harness on treadmill for safety
Early Feeding – continue or start enteral nutrition at rehab admission if patient is not able to eat full meals
Use Opioids for Pain – continue or start opioids at rehab admission if patient misses therapy due to pain 41
![Page 42: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Traumatic Brain InjuryTraumatic Brain Injury
What treatments are associated with better What treatments are associated with better outcomes at routcomes at rehabilitationehabilitation discharge for discharge for patients with traumatic brain injury?patients with traumatic brain injury?
42
![Page 43: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
TBI Admission FIM CognitiveTBI Admission FIM CognitiveSubgroups (N=2130)Subgroups (N=2130)
43
Adm FIM Cognitive N during Rehab N at 3 months N at 9 months
Score <=6 339 286 262
Score 7-10 374 312 302
Score 11-15 495 411 394
Score 16-20 408 326 311
Score >=21 504 401 373
Total 2120* 1742** 1649***
Ns decrease due to non-consent for follow up, death, or incarceration
*N=10, **N=6, ***N=7 Missing Admission FIM cognitive score43
![Page 44: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Point-of-Care (POC) documentation- Point-of-Care (POC) documentation- Physical TherapyPhysical Therapy
44
![Page 45: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Discharge Rasch-Adjusted FIM Motor Regression: Variance Explained
Step R²Adm Cog
<=6Adm Cog
7-10Adm Cog
11-15Adm Cog
16-20Adm Cog
>=21
Pat/Inj 0.38 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.71
Pat/Inj + POC total 0.41 0.49 0.48 0.56 0.72
Pat/Inj + POC act/ LOE
0.74 0.70 0.62 0.62 0.76
Pat/Inj + meds 0.41 0.48 0.48 0.55 0.72
Pat/Inj + POC act/ LOE + meds
0.74 0.70 0.63 0.63 0.76
Pat/Inj + POC act/ LOE + meds + sites
0.74 0.71 0.63 0.65 0.7845
![Page 46: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
All Regressions Summary:Patient and Injury Significant Covariates
Red = negative coeff, p<.05; Green = positive coeff, p<.05
Covariate Cog <=6 Cog 7-10 Cog 11-15 Cog 16-20 Cog >=21
FIM Cog dcC LoS dcC dcC
FIM Motor LoS dcM dcM dcH
fuC LoS dcM dcC
LoS dcM fuM
LoS dcM
Age dcM dcC dcH fuM fuC
dcM dcH fuM fuC
LoS dcM dcC dcH fuM fuC
dcM dcH fuM
LoS dcM dcC dcH fuM fuC
Avg LOE dcM dcC dcH fuM fuC
dcM dcC dcH
dcM dcC dcH fuM
LoS dcM dcC dcH fuM fuC
dcC fuC
Inj to Adm LoS dcM dcC fuM
dcM dcC fuM fuC
LoS dcM fuM fuC
LoS fuM
LoS fuM
HS, No Dplma fuC fuM fuC fuM fuC
BI CSI LoS LoS LoS LoS dcH
non-BI CSI dcM LoS dcH LoS dcM fuM LoS
Black Race fuM LoS fuM
LoS dcM fuM
Rehab Length of Stay (LoS) Discharge FIM Motor (dcM) Discharge FIM Cognitive (dcC) Discharge to Home (dcH) 9-Month FIM Motor (fuM) 9-Month FIM Cognitive (fuC)
![Page 47: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
Covariate Adm Cog <=6 Adm Cog 7-10 Adm Cog 11-15 Adm Cog 16-20 Adm Cog >=21
OT Education/Sexuality Min/Wk dcH fuM fuC dcH LoS dcH LoS
OT Home IADLs Min/Wk dcM dcH dcM
OT Physical Impairments Min/Wk dcM fuM dcM fuM dcM fuM dcM LoS
PT Advanced Gait, Gait, Community Mobility, Stairs Min/Wk
dcM fuM dcM dcH
PT Equip Mgmt, WC/Bed Mobility, Casting, Sitting, Trnsfrs, Develop Seq Min/Wk
dcM fuM fuC LoS dcM
dcC dcM dcH dcM dcC
PT Formal Assessment Min/Wk LoS fuM LoS fuM LoS dcH fuM LoS
ST Education Min/Wk dcH LoS dcH fuC LoS dcH dcC dcH dcH
ST Basic Motor/Speech Min/Wk dcM LoS dcM dcC fuM
ST Problem Solving, Math, Money, Memory, Orientation Min/Wk
dcM dcC fuM fuC
dcM dcC fuM
dcM fuM
% Stay Atypical Antipsychotics LoS dcM dcC dcM dcC fuC
Rehab Length of Stay (LOS) Discharge FIM Motor (dcM) Discharge FIM Cognitive (dcC) Discharge to Home (dcH)9-Month FIM Motor (fuM) 9-Month FIM Cognitive (fuC) Red = negative coeff, p<.05 Green = positive coeff, p<.05
All Regressions Summary:Regressions Summary: Treatment Significant Covariates
Red = negative coeff, p<.05; Green = positive coeff, p<.05
![Page 48: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Children Hospitalized with RSVChildren Hospitalized with RSV
What treatments are associated with better What treatments are associated with better outcomes for children hospitalized with RSV outcomes for children hospitalized with RSV infections, controlling for child differences? infections, controlling for child differences?
![Page 49: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Pediatric Bronchiolitis StudyPediatric Bronchiolitis StudyOutcome = Cost n=722; ROutcome = Cost n=722; R22=0.73=0.73
- Age in months (.0001)- Age in months (.0001)
+ MCSIC (.0001)+ MCSIC (.0001)
+ Admitted to PICU (.0001)+ Admitted to PICU (.0001)+ Arterial line (.04)+ Arterial line (.04)+ Central line (.003)+ Central line (.003)+ Continuous nebulization (.0002)+ Continuous nebulization (.0002)+ Interaction: chest pt & atelectasis (.005)+ Interaction: chest pt & atelectasis (.005)+ Intubation (.0001)+ Intubation (.0001)+ Ipratropium bromide (.005)+ Ipratropium bromide (.005)+ Lasix (.0001)+ Lasix (.0001)+ Ribavirin (.0001)+ Ribavirin (.0001)+ Steroids (.0003)+ Steroids (.0003)
AssessmentAssessment ProceduresProcedures
Willson, et al. PEDIATRICS 2001;108(4):851-855.
![Page 50: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Prematurity and RSV Prematurity and RSV Hospital OutcomesHospital Outcomes
< < 32 wks32 wks 33-35 wks33-35 wks 36 wks36 wks > > 37 wks37 wks p-valuep-value
IntubationIntubation 21.4%21.4% 38.7%38.7% 20%20% 12.1%12.1% 0.0020.002
ICU LOSICU LOS 5.8 days5.8 days 7.7 days7.7 days 4.2 days4.2 days 3.8 days3.8 days 0.0210.021
Hospital LOSHospital LOS 6.8 days6.8 days 8.4 days8.4 days 4.9 days4.9 days 4.1 days4.1 days <0.0001<0.0001
Admitted to ICUAdmitted to ICU 39.3%39.3% 48.4%48.4% 30.0%30.0% 27.9%27.9% 0.1010.101
HX of Hosp. for HX of Hosp. for RSV /BronchiolitisRSV /Bronchiolitis 14.3%14.3% 16.1%16.1% 6.7%6.7% 6.1%6.1% 0.1370.137
Significant Differences by Gestational Age GroupsSignificant Differences by Gestational Age Groups33-35 week GA infants had highest hospital resource use33-35 week GA infants had highest hospital resource use
![Page 51: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
RSV Hospital Outcomes and Policy ChangesRSV Hospital Outcomes and Policy Changes
ConclusionsConclusions• 33-35 week GA infants had highest hospital resource use33-35 week GA infants had highest hospital resource use
• 36 week infants have risk similar to full term infants36 week infants have risk similar to full term infants
• Changed guidelines for immunoprophylaxis Changed guidelines for immunoprophylaxis for 33-35 week for 33-35 week infantsinfants
• Changed guidelines for intubation Changed guidelines for intubation – try ‘stimulating’ first– try ‘stimulating’ first
![Page 52: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics University of Utah Practice-Based Evidence: A New Paradigm for Comparative Effectiveness Research October 23, 2014](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051621/56649e525503460f94b47b78/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
SummarySummary
• PBE methodology provides a structured way to design PBE methodology provides a structured way to design studies of patients in routine care settingsstudies of patients in routine care settings
• PBE studies develop comprehensive databases of PBE studies develop comprehensive databases of patient, treatment, and outcome differencespatient, treatment, and outcome differences
• PBE findings associated with better outcomes are PBE findings associated with better outcomes are easily transferable for use in other sites because all easily transferable for use in other sites because all patients with a condition can be included in a PBE patients with a condition can be included in a PBE studystudy