BackgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) has a varied and uncertain trajectory. The recent development of analytical processing tools that draw on large longitudinal patient databases facilitates personalised long-term prognosis estimates. This has the potential to improve both shared treatment decision-making and psychological adjustment. However, there is limited research on how people with MS feel about prognosis communication and forecasting. This study investigated the prognosis communication experiences and preferences of people with MS and explored whether clinical, demographic and psychological factors are associated with prognosis information preferences.Methods3175 UK MS Register members (59% of those with active accounts) completed an online survey containing 17 questions about prognosis communication experiences, attitudes and preferences. Participants also completed validated questionnaires measuring coping strategies, tendencies to seek out (‘monitor’) or avoid (‘blunt’) information in threatening situations, and MS risk perceptions and reported their clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Data already held on the MS Register about participants’ quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms and MS impact were obtained and linked to the survey data.Results53.1% of participants had never discussed long-term prognosis with healthcare professionals. 54.2% lacked clarity about their long-term prognosis. 76% had strong preferences for receiving long-term prognosis information. 92.8% were interested in using tools that generate personalised predictions. Most participants considered prognostication useful for decision-making. Participants were more receptive to receiving prognosis information at later time-points, versus at diagnosis. A comprehensive set of sociodemographic, clinical and psychological variables predicted only 7.9% variance in prognosis information preferences.ConclusionsPeople with MS have an appetite for individualised long-term prognosis forecasting and their need for information is frequently unmet. Clinical studies deploying and evaluating interventions to support prognostication in MS are now needed. This study indicates suitable contexts and patient preferences for initial trials of long-term prognosis tools in clinical settings.

SummaryObjective: The amount of clinical information that anesthesia providers encounter creates an environment for information overload and medical error. In an effort to create more efficient OR and PACU EMR viewer platforms, we aimed to better understand the intraoperative and post-anesthesia clinical information needs among anesthesia providers. Materials and Methods: A web-based survey to evaluate 75 clinical data items was created and distributed to all anesthesia providers at our institution. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each data item in helping them make routine clinical decisions in the OR and PACU settings.Results: There were 107 survey responses with distribution throughout all clinical roles. 84% of the data items fell within the top 2 proportional quarters in the OR setting compared to only 65% in the PACU. Thirty of the 75 items (40%) received an absolutely necessary rating by more than half of the respondents for the OR setting as opposed to only 19 of the 75 items (25%) in the PACU. Only 1 item was rated by more than 20% of respondents as not needed in the OR compared to 20 data items (27%) in the PACU. Conclusion: Anesthesia providers demonstrate a larger need for EMR data to help guide clinical decision making in the OR as compared to the PACU. When creating EMR platforms for these settings it is important to understand and include data items providers deem the most clinically useful. Minimizing the less relevant data items helps prevent information overload and reduces the risk for medical error.

No abstract

Background Accurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for best patient care and efficient use of services and requires a risk prediction score that is COVID-19 specific and adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms and risk factors, we sought to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores RECAP-GP (without peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)) and RECAP-O2 (with SpO2). Methods Prospective cohort study using multivariable logistic regression for model development. Data on signs and symptoms (model predictors) were collected on community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records systems and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (primary outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources: RECAP-GP: Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care practices (development), Northwest London (NWL) primary care practices, NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS) (validation). RECAP-O2: Doctaly Assist platform (development, and validation in subsequent sample). Estimated sample size was 2,880 per model. Findings Data were available from 8,311 individuals. Observations, such SpO2, were mostly missing in NWL, RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO2 was available for around 70% of Doctaly patients. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP included sex, age, degree of breathlessness, temperature symptoms, and presence of hypertension (Area Under the Curve (AUC): 0.802, Validation Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of low risk 98.8%. RECAP-O2 included age, degree of breathlessness, fatigue, and SpO2 at rest (AUC: 0.843), Validation NPV of low risk 99.4%. Interpretation Both RECAP models are a valid tool in the assessment of COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored at home and SpO2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for further treatment escalation.