RATIONALE: Most ward risk scores were created using subjective opinion in individual hospitals and only use vital signs. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a risk score using commonly collected electronic health record data. METHODS: All patients hospitalized on the wards in five hospitals were included in this observational cohort study. Discrete-time survival analysis was used to predict the combined outcome of cardiac arrest (CA), intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, or death on the wards. Laboratory results, vital signs, and demographics were used as predictor variables. The model was developed in the first 60% of the data at each hospital and then validated in the remaining 40%. The final model was compared with the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the net reclassification index (NRI). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 269,999 patient admissions were included, with 424 CAs, 13,188 ICU transfers, and 2,840 deaths occurring during the study period. The derived model was more accurate than the MEWS in the validation dataset for all outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.83 vs. 0.71 for CA; 0.75 vs. 0.68 for ICU transfer; 0.93 vs. 0.88 for death; and 0.77 vs. 0.70 for the combined outcome; P value < 0.01 for all comparisons). This accuracy improvement was seen across all hospitals. The NRI for the electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage compared with the MEWS was 0.28 (0.18-0.38), with a positive NRI of 0.19 (0.09-0.29) and a negative NRI of 0.09 (0.09-0.09). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an accurate ward risk stratification tool using commonly collected electronic health record variables in a large multicenter dataset. Further study is needed to determine whether implementation in real-time would improve patient outcomes.
RATIONALE: Most ward risk scores were created using subjective opinion in individual hospitals and only use vital signs. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a risk score using commonly collected electronic health record data. METHODS: All patients hospitalized on the wards in five hospitals were included in this observational cohort study. Discrete-time survival analysis was used to predict the combined outcome of cardiac arrest (CA), intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, or death on the wards. Laboratory results, vital signs, and demographics were used as predictor variables. The model was developed in the first 60% of the data at each hospital and then validated in the remaining 40%. The final model was compared with the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the net reclassification index (NRI). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 269,999 patient admissions were included, with 424 CAs, 13,188 ICU transfers, and 2,840 deaths occurring during the study period. The derived model was more accurate than the MEWS in the validation dataset for all outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.83 vs. 0.71 for CA; 0.75 vs. 0.68 for ICU transfer; 0.93 vs. 0.88 for death; and 0.77 vs. 0.70 for the combined outcome; P value < 0.01 for all comparisons). This accuracy improvement was seen across all hospitals. The NRI for the electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage compared with the MEWS was 0.28 (0.18-0.38), with a positive NRI of 0.19 (0.09-0.29) and a negative NRI of 0.09 (0.09-0.09). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an accurate ward risk stratification tool using commonly collected electronic health record variables in a large multicenter dataset. Further study is needed to determine whether implementation in real-time would improve patient outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
decision support techniques; early diagnosis; heart arrest; hospital rapid response team; statistical models
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Michael T Huber; Seo Young Park; Jesse B Hall; Dana P Edelson Journal: Chest Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Brian H Cuthbertson; Massoud Boroujerdi; Laurin McKie; Lorna Aucott; Gordon Prescott Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gabriel J Escobar; Juan Carlos LaGuardia; Benjamin J Turk; Arona Ragins; Patricia Kipnis; David Draper Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: W A Knaus; D P Wagner; E A Draper; J E Zimmerman; M Bergner; P G Bastos; C A Sirio; D J Murphy; T Lotring; A Damiano Journal: Chest Date: 1991-12 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Christopher Winslow; Ari A Robicsek; David O Meltzer; Robert D Gibbons; Dana P Edelson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Blair Wendlandt; Frank J Zadravecz; Richa Adhikari; Christopher Winslow; Dana P Edelson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: L Nelson Sanchez-Pinto; Laura Ruth Venable; John Fahrenbach; Matthew M Churpek Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Frank J Zadravecz; Christopher Winslow; Michael D Howell; Dana P Edelson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Niels Egholm Pedersen; Lars Simon Rasmussen; John Asger Petersen; Thomas Alexander Gerds; Doris Østergaard; Anne Lippert Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Kyle A Carey; Nino Dela Merced; James Prister; John Brofman; Dana P Edelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.598