Juliessa M Pavon1,2,3, Richard J Sloane1,2,3, Carl F Pieper1,2,3, Cathleen S Colón-Emeric1,2,3, Harvey J Cohen1,2,3, David Gallagher1, Miriam C Morey1,2,3, Midori McCarty1, Thomas L Ortel1, Susan N Hastings1,2,3,4. 1. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 2. Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 3. Duke University Claude D. Pepper Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 4. Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is an important consideration for hospitalized older adults, and the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) is a risk prediction tool used to prioritize patient selection. We developed an automated PPS (APPS) algorithm using electronic health record (EHR) data. This study examines the accuracy of APPS and its individual components versus manual data extraction. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized general internal medicine patients, aged 70 and over. Fourteen clinical variables were collected to determine their PPS; APPS used EHR data exports from health system databases, and a trained abstractor performed manual chart abstractions. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the APPS, using manual PPS as the gold standard for classifying risk category (low vs. high). We also examined performance characteristics of the APPS for individual variables. RESULTS: PPS was calculated by both methods on 311 individuals. The mean PPS was 3.6 (standard deviation, 1.8) for manual abstraction and 2.8 (1.4) for APPS. In detecting patients at high risk for VTE, the sensitivity and specificity of the APPS algorithm were 46 and 94%, respectively. The sensitivity for APPS was poor (range: 6-34%) for detecting acute conditions (i.e., acute myocardial infarction), moderate (range: 52-74%) for chronic conditions (i.e., heart failure), and excellent (range: 94-98%) for conditions of obesity and restricted mobility. Specificity of the automated extraction method for each PPS variable was > 87%. CONCLUSION: APPS as a stand-alone tool was suboptimal for classifying risk of VTE occurrence. The APPS accurately identified high risk patients (true positives), but lower scores were considered indeterminate. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is an important consideration for hospitalized older adults, and the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) is a risk prediction tool used to prioritize patient selection. We developed an automated PPS (APPS) algorithm using electronic health record (EHR) data. This study examines the accuracy of APPS and its individual components versus manual data extraction. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized general internal medicine patients, aged 70 and over. Fourteen clinical variables were collected to determine their PPS; APPS used EHR data exports from health system databases, and a trained abstractor performed manual chart abstractions. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the APPS, using manual PPS as the gold standard for classifying risk category (low vs. high). We also examined performance characteristics of the APPS for individual variables. RESULTS:PPS was calculated by both methods on 311 individuals. The mean PPS was 3.6 (standard deviation, 1.8) for manual abstraction and 2.8 (1.4) for APPS. In detecting patients at high risk for VTE, the sensitivity and specificity of the APPS algorithm were 46 and 94%, respectively. The sensitivity for APPS was poor (range: 6-34%) for detecting acute conditions (i.e., acute myocardial infarction), moderate (range: 52-74%) for chronic conditions (i.e., heart failure), and excellent (range: 94-98%) for conditions of obesity and restricted mobility. Specificity of the automated extraction method for each PPS variable was > 87%. CONCLUSION: APPS as a stand-alone tool was suboptimal for classifying risk of VTE occurrence. The APPS accurately identified high risk patients (true positives), but lower scores were considered indeterminate. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Hude Quan; Bing Li; L Duncan Saunders; Gerry A Parsons; Carolyn I Nilsson; Arif Alibhai; William A Ghali Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: S Barbar; F Noventa; V Rossetto; A Ferrari; B Brandolin; M Perlati; E De Bon; D Tormene; A Pagnan; P Prandoni Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Alexander T Cohen; Giancarlo Agnelli; Frederick A Anderson; Juan I Arcelus; David Bergqvist; Josef G Brecht; Ian A Greer; John A Heit; Julia L Hutchinson; Ajay K Kakkar; Dominique Mottier; Emmanuel Oger; Meyer-Michel Samama; Michael Spannagl Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Safiya Richardson; Nasen Jonathan Zhang; Philippe Rameau; Marsophia Julemis; Yan Liu; Jeffrey Solomon; Sundas Khan; Thomas McGinn Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-02-28