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.

Objective: To explore home care nurses' numeracy and graph literacy and their relationship to comprehension of visualized data. Materials and Methods: A multifactorial experimental design using online survey software. Nurses were recruited from 2 Medicare-certified home health agencies. Numeracy and graph literacy were measured using validated scales. Nurses were randomized to 1 of 4 experimental conditions. Each condition displayed data for 1 of 4 quality indicators, in 1 of 4 different visualized formats (bar graph, line graph, spider graph, table). A mixed linear model measured the impact of numeracy, graph literacy, and display format on data understanding. Results: In all, 195 nurses took part in the study. They were slightly more numerate and graph literate than the general population. Overall, nurses understood information presented in bar graphs most easily (88% correct), followed by tables (81% correct), line graphs (77% correct), and spider graphs (41% correct). Individuals with low numeracy and low graph literacy had poorer comprehension of information displayed across all formats. High graph literacy appeared to enhance comprehension of data regardless of numeracy capabilities. Discussion and Conclusion: Clinical dashboards are increasingly used to provide information to clinicians in visualized format, under the assumption that visual display reduces cognitive workload. Results of this study suggest that nurses' comprehension of visualized information is influenced by their numeracy, graph literacy, and the display format of the data. Individual differences in numeracy and graph literacy skills need to be taken into account when designing dashboard technology.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the frequency and types of prescribing errors in the ambulatory setting among community-based, primary care providers. Therefore, the rates and types of prescribing errors were assessed among community-based, primary care providers in two states. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A non-randomized cross-sectional study was conducted of 48 providers in New York and 30 providers in Massachusetts, all of whom used paper prescriptions, from September 2005 to November 2006. Using standardized methodology, prescriptions and medical records were reviewed to identify errors. RESULTS: 9385 prescriptions were analyzed from 5955 patients. The overall prescribing error rate, excluding illegibility errors, was 36.7 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI 30.7 to 44.0) and did not vary significantly between providers from each state (p=0.39). One or more non-illegibility errors were found in 28% of prescriptions. Rates of illegibility errors were very high (175.0 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 169.1 to 181.3). Inappropriate abbreviation and direction errors also occurred frequently (13.4 and 4.2 errors per 100 prescriptions, respectively). Reviewers determined that the vast majority of errors could have been eliminated through the use of e-prescribing with clinical decision support. DISCUSSION: Prescribing errors appear to occur at very high rates among community-based primary care providers, especially when compared with studies of academic-affiliated providers that have found nearly threefold lower error rates. Illegibility errors are particularly problematical. CONCLUSIONS: Further characterizing prescribing errors of community-based providers may inform strategies to improve ambulatory medication safety, especially e-prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00225576.