MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415500524 · doi:10.2196/75081

A Novel Primary Care Planning Informatics Tool Informed by Data-Driven Multimorbidity Grouping: User-Centered Design and Feasibility Testing

2025· article· en· W4415500524 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linnaea Schuttner, Karin Daniels, Franya Hutchins, Karley Atchison, Rebecca Piegari, Timothy Bober, Ann‐Marie Rosland

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPrimary careInformaticsMultimorbidityHealth informaticsPatient careProcess (computing)Primary health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with multimorbidity have complex health care needs and are at high risk for adverse health outcomes. Primary care teams need tools to effectively and proactively plan care for these patients. We developed VET-PATHS (Veteran Panel Management Tool for High-Risk Subgroups), a novel care planning informatics tool for complex primary care patients. VET-PATHS groups patients by chronic condition via latent class analysis of electronic health record data, then jump-starts care planning by suggesting "care steps" based on data-driven high-priority care for the group. Objective: The study aimed to iteratively adapt VET-PATHS with user input, then test feasibility and acceptability by frontline primary care teams for empaneled patients at high risk. Methods: Three rounds of user-centered design sessions with 17 primary care providers and registered nurses at 5 sites from 2019 to 2021 were conducted to obtain feedback on the VET-PATHS layout, content, and user interface. Feedback was summarized into 4 user experience domains (useful, desirable, credible, and usable), leading to progressively updated prototypes. After the national tool release, we conducted a pilot intervention study in 2023-2024 with 6 primary care teams at 4 sites using VET-PATHS during asynchronous regular meetings. Tool use and resulting care plans were assessed by templated observation during meetings, postpilot chart review, and administrative data. Individual qualitative interviews were analyzed by rapid template analysis for feasibility, acceptability, and utility. Results: User-centered feedback led to updated tool content, context (eg, use in proactive panel management), targeted users (eg, focusing on primary care providers), and display layout. Pilot teams used VET-PATHS over 4 to 8 weekly meetings (mean length 24, range 16-49 min), actively reviewing 80% (280/351) of empaneled patients at high risk visible in the tool. Tool use prompted 127 new actions for 91 unique patients (33% of patients reviewed) and documentation of >1 new care plan for 19% of patients reviewed. Common actions included requests to return to the clinic (n=34, 27%), referrals (n=25, 20%), or vaccinations (n=24, 19%). Of the 127 actions planned, 53 (42%) were received by patients. Difference-in-difference trends for acute hospitalizations declined post pilot, while outpatient utilization was stable or increased for pilot team patients compared to all patients at high risk at pilot sites (per-patient counts: acute hospitalizations -0.15; primary care visits 0.00; mental health visits 0.99). Four generalist teams (n=11 interviews) described higher acceptability. Two "focused" teams with more homogenous panels, for example, substance use disorder (n=3 interviews), found care steps less useful. Teams described how VET-PATHS improved efficiency of care planning through automated patient grouping and identification of care gaps and increased multidisciplinary involvement. Conclusions: User-centered improvements to VET-PATHS were designed to help clinicians process and use complex information about patient multimorbidity to efficiently create new care plans. Subsequently, VET-PATHS was acceptable and feasible to frontline primary care teams, particularly with more general patient panels, and led to concrete changes to clinical care delivery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.329
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.154 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→