OBJECTIVES: To explore home healthcare (HHC) clinicians' needs for Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) information delivery for early risk warning within HHC workflows. METHODS: Guided by the CDS "Five-Rights" framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with multidisciplinary HHC clinicians from April 2023 to August 2023. We used deductive and inductive content analysis to investigate informants' responses regarding CDSS information delivery. RESULTS: Interviews with thirteen HHC clinicians yielded 16 codes mapping to the CDS "Five-Rights" framework (right information, right person, right format, right channel, right time) and 11 codes for unintended consequences and training needs. Clinicians favored risk levels displayed in color-coded horizontal bars, concrete risk indicators in bullet points, and actionable instructions in the existing EHR system. They preferred non-intrusive risk alerts requiring mandatory confirmation. Clinicians anticipated risk information updates aligned with patient's condition severity and their visit pace. Additionally, they requested training to understand the CDSS's underlying logic, and raised concerns about information accuracy and data privacy. DISCUSSION: While recognizing CDSS's value in enhancing early risk warning, clinicians highlighted concerns about increased workload, alert fatigue, and CDSS misuse. The top risk factors identified by machine learning algorithms, especially text features, can be ambiguous due to a lack of context. Future research should ensure that CDSS outputs align with clinical evidence and are explainable. CONCLUSION: This study identified HHC clinicians' expectations, preferences, adaptations, and unintended uses of CDSS for early risk warning. Our findings endorse operationalizing the CDS "Five-Rights" framework to optimize CDSS information delivery and integration into HHC workflows.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about proactive risk assessment concerning emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations in patients with heart failure (HF) who receive home healthcare (HHC) services. This study developed a time series risk model for predicting ED visits and hospitalizations in patients with HF using longitudinal electronic health record data. We also explored which data sources yield the best-performing models over various time windows. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data collected from 9362 patients from a large HHC agency. We iteratively developed risk models using both structured (eg, standard assessment tools, vital signs, visit characteristics) and unstructured data (eg, clinical notes). Seven specific sets of variables included: (1) the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, (2) vital signs, (3) visit characteristics, (4) rule-based natural language processing-derived variables, (5) term frequency-inverse document frequency variables, (6) Bio-Clinical Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers variables, and (7) topic modeling. Risk models were developed for 18 time windows (1-15, 30, 45, and 60 days) before an ED visit or hospitalization. Risk prediction performances were compared using recall, precision, accuracy, F1, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). RESULTS: The best-performing model was built using a combination of all 7 sets of variables and the time window of 4 days before an ED visit or hospitalization (AUC = 0.89 and F1 = 0.69). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This prediction model suggests that HHC clinicians can identify patients with HF at risk for visiting the ED or hospitalization within 4 days before the event, allowing for earlier targeted interventions.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify temporal risk factor patterns documented in home health care (HHC) clinical notes and examine their association with hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for 73 350 episodes of care from one large HHC organization were analyzed using dynamic time warping and hierarchical clustering analysis to identify the temporal patterns of risk factors documented in clinical notes. The Omaha System nursing terminology represented risk factors. First, clinical characteristics were compared between clusters. Next, multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between clusters and risk for hospitalizations or ED visits. Omaha System domains corresponding to risk factors were analyzed and described in each cluster. RESULTS: Six temporal clusters emerged, showing different patterns in how risk factors were documented over time. Patients with a steep increase in documented risk factors over time had a 3 times higher likelihood of hospitalization or ED visit than patients with no documented risk factors. Most risk factors belonged to the physiological domain, and only a few were in the environmental domain. DISCUSSION: An analysis of risk factor trajectories reflects a patient's evolving health status during a HHC episode. Using standardized nursing terminology, this study provided new insights into the complex temporal dynamics of HHC, which may lead to improved patient outcomes through better treatment and management plans. CONCLUSION: Incorporating temporal patterns in documented risk factors and their clusters into early warning systems may activate interventions to prevent hospitalizations or ED visits in HHC.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors home healthcare (HHC) clinicians associate with patient deterioration and understand how clinicians respond to and document these risk factors. METHODS: We interviewed multidisciplinary HHC clinicians from January to March of 2021. Risk factors were mapped to standardized terminologies (eg, Omaha System). We used directed content analysis to identify risk factors for deterioration. We used inductive thematic analysis to understand HHC clinicians' response to risk factors and documentation of risk factors. RESULTS: Fifteen HHC clinicians identified a total of 79 risk factors that were mapped to standardized terminologies. HHC clinicians most frequently responded to risk factors by communicating with the prescribing provider (86.7% of clinicians) or following up with patients and caregivers (86.7%). HHC clinicians stated that a majority of risk factors can be found in clinical notes (ie, care coordination (53.3%) or visit (46.7%)). DISCUSSION: Clinicians acknowledged that social factors play a role in deterioration risk; but these factors are infrequently studied in HHC. While a majority of risk factors were represented in the Omaha System, additional terminologies are needed to comprehensively capture risk. Since most risk factors are documented in clinical notes, methods such as natural language processing are needed to extract them. CONCLUSION: This study engaged clinicians to understand risk for deterioration during HHC. The results of our study support the development of an early warning system by providing a comprehensive list of risk factors grounded in clinician expertize and mapped to standardized terminologies.