Literature DB >> 31135691

Prediction Accuracy With Electronic Medical Records Versus Administrative Claims.

Dan Zeltzer1, Ran D Balicer2,3, Tzvi Shir2, Natalie Flaks-Manov2, Liran Einav4,5, Efrat Shadmi2,6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the incremental predictive power of electronic medical record (EMR) data, relative to the information available in more easily accessible and standardized insurance claims data. DATA AND METHODS: Using both EMR and Claims data, we predicted outcomes for 118,510 patients with 144,966 hospitalizations in 8 hospitals, using widely used prediction models. We use cross-validation to prevent overfitting and tested predictive performance on separate data that were not used for model training. MAIN OUTCOMES: We predict 4 binary outcomes: length of stay (≥7 d), death during the index admission, 30-day readmission, and 1-year mortality.
RESULTS: We achieve nearly the same prediction accuracy using both EMR and claims data relative to using claims data alone in predicting 30-day readmissions [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.698 vs. 0.711; positive predictive value (PPV) at top 10% of predicted risk: 37.2% vs. 35.7%], and 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.902 vs. 0.912; PPV: 64.6% vs. 57.6%). EMR data, especially from the first 2 days of the index admission, substantially improved prediction of length of stay (AUC: 0.786 vs. 0.837; PPV: 58.9% vs. 55.5%) and inpatient mortality (AUC: 0.897 vs. 0.950; PPV: 24.3% vs. 14.0%). Results were similar for sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value across alternative cutoffs and for using alternative types of predictive models.
CONCLUSION: EMR data are useful in predicting short-term outcomes. However, their incremental value for predicting longer-term outcomes is smaller. Therefore, for interventions that are based on long-term predictions, using more broadly available claims data is equally effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31135691     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  3 in total

Review 1.  Data Science Methods for Nursing-Relevant Patient Outcomes and Clinical Processes: The 2019 Literature Year in Review.

Authors:  Mary Anne Schultz; Rachel Lane Walden; Kenrick Cato; Cynthia Peltier Coviak; Christopher Cruz; Fabio D'Agostino; Brian J Douthit; Thompson Forbes; Grace Gao; Mikyoung Angela Lee; Deborah Lekan; Ann Wieben; Alvin D Jeffery
Journal:  Comput Inform Nurs       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 1.985

Review 2.  Electronic Health Record Network Research in Infectious Diseases.

Authors:  Ravi Jhaveri; Jordan John; Marc Rosenman
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 3.393

3.  Development of Deep Learning Models for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality Using an Administrative Claims Database: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Hiroki Matsui; Hayato Yamana; Kiyohide Fushimi; Hideo Yasunaga
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2022-02-11
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.