Maya Dewan1,2,3, Naveen Muthu4, Eric Shelov4, Christopher P Bonafide4, Patrick Brady1,3,5, Daniela Davis6, Eric S Kirkendall5,7, Dana Niles6, Robert M Sutton6, Danielle Traynor6, Ken Tegtmeyer1,2, Vinay Nadkarni6, Heather Wolfe6. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 3. James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 4. Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 6. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the translation of a paper high-risk checklist for PICU patients at risk of clinical deterioration to an automated clinical decision support tool. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study of an automated clinical decision support tool, the PICU Warning Tool, adapted from a paper checklist to predict clinical deterioration events in PICU patients within 24 hours. SETTING: Two quaternary care medical-surgical PICUs-The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. PATIENTS: The study included all patients admitted from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, the year prior to the initiation of any focused situational awareness work at either institution. INTERVENTIONS: We replicated the predictions of the real-time PICU Warning Tool by retrospectively querying the institutional data warehouse to identify all patients that would have flagged as high-risk by the PICU Warning Tool for their index deterioration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure of interest was determination of high-risk status during PICU admission via the PICU Warning Tool. The primary outcome of interest was clinical deterioration event within 24 hours of a positive screen. The date and time of the deterioration event was used as the index time point. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the performance of the PICU Warning Tool. There were 6,233 patients evaluated with 233 clinical deterioration events experienced by 154 individual patients. The positive predictive value of the PICU Warning Tool was 7.1% with a number needed to screen of 14 patients for each index clinical deterioration event. The most predictive of the individual criteria were elevated lactic acidosis, high mean airway pressure, and profound acidosis. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of a clinical decision support translation of a paper-based tool showed inferior test characteristics. Improved feasibility of identification of high-risk patients using automated tools must be balanced with performance.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the translation of a paper high-risk checklist for PICU patients at risk of clinical deterioration to an automated clinical decision support tool. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study of an automated clinical decision support tool, the PICU Warning Tool, adapted from a paper checklist to predict clinical deterioration events in PICU patients within 24 hours. SETTING: Two quaternary care medical-surgical PICUs-The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. PATIENTS: The study included all patients admitted from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, the year prior to the initiation of any focused situational awareness work at either institution. INTERVENTIONS: We replicated the predictions of the real-time PICU Warning Tool by retrospectively querying the institutional data warehouse to identify all patients that would have flagged as high-risk by the PICU Warning Tool for their index deterioration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure of interest was determination of high-risk status during PICU admission via the PICU Warning Tool. The primary outcome of interest was clinical deterioration event within 24 hours of a positive screen. The date and time of the deterioration event was used as the index time point. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the performance of the PICU Warning Tool. There were 6,233 patients evaluated with 233 clinical deterioration events experienced by 154 individual patients. The positive predictive value of the PICU Warning Tool was 7.1% with a number needed to screen of 14 patients for each index clinical deterioration event. The most predictive of the individual criteria were elevated lactic acidosis, high mean airway pressure, and profound acidosis. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of a clinical decision support translation of a paper-based tool showed inferior test characteristics. Improved feasibility of identification of high-risk patients using automated tools must be balanced with performance.
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Dana Niles; Peter A Meaney; Richard Aplenc; Benjamin French; Benjamin S Abella; Evelyn L Lengetti; Robert A Berg; Mark A Helfaer; Vinay Nadkarni Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Dana E Niles; Akira Nishisaki; Robert M Sutton; Okan U Elci; Peter A Meaney; Kathleen A OʼConnor; Jessica Leffelman; Jo Kramer-Johansen; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Patrick W Brady; Stephen Muething; Uma Kotagal; Marshall Ashby; Regan Gallagher; Dawn Hall; Marty Goodfriend; Christine White; Tracey M Bracke; Victoria DeCastro; Maria Geiser; Jodi Simon; Karen M Tucker; Jason Olivea; Patrick H Conway; Derek S Wheeler Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ana Lia Graciano; Robert Tamburro; Ann E Thompson; John Fiadjoe; Vinay M Nadkarni; Akira Nishisaki Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Dana E Niles; Maya Dewan; Carleen Zebuhr; Heather Wolfe; Christopher P Bonafide; Robert M Sutton; Mary Ann DiLiberto; Lori Boyle; Natalie Napolitano; Ryan W Morgan; Hannah Stinson; Jessica Leffelman; Akira Nishisaki; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Richard Holubkov; Carol E Nicholson; J Michael Dean; Rick Harrison; Sabrina Heidemann; Kathleen Meert; Christopher Newth; Frank Moler; Murray Pollack; Heidi Dalton; Allan Doctor; David Wessel; John Berger; Thomas Shanley; Joseph Carcillo; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maya Dewan; Blaise Soberano; Tina Sosa; Matthew Zackoff; Philip Hagedorn; Patrick W Brady; Ranjit S Chima; Erika L Stalets; Lindsey Moore; Maria Britto; Robert M Sutton; Vinay Nadkarni; Ken Tegtmeyer; Heather Wolfe Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 3.971
Authors: Maya Dewan; Allison Parsons; Ken Tegtmeyer; Jesse Wenger; Dana Niles; Tia Raymond; Adam Cheng; Sophie Skellett; Joan Roberts; Priti Jani; Vinay Nadkarni; Heather Wolfe Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2021-08-26
Authors: Ryan W Morgan; Matthew P Kirschen; Todd J Kilbaugh; Robert M Sutton; Alexis A Topjian Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 16.193