Haley S Hunter-Zinck1, Jordan S Peck2,3, Tania D Strout3,4, Stephan A Gaehde1,5. 1. Department of Emergency Services, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Center for Performance Improvement, MaineHealth, Portland, Maine, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Medford, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA. 5. School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) continue to pursue optimal patient flow without sacrificing quality of care. The speed with which a healthcare provider receives pertinent information, such as results from clinical orders, can impact flow. We seek to determine if clinical ordering behavior can be predicted at triage during an ED visit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data available during triage, we trained multilabel machine learning classifiers to predict clinical orders placed during an ED visit. We benchmarked 4 classifiers with 2 multilabel learning frameworks that predict orders independently (binary relevance) or simultaneously (random k-labelsets). We evaluated algorithm performance, calculated variable importance, and conducted a simple simulation study to examine the effects of algorithm implementation on length of stay and cost. RESULTS: Aggregate performance across orders was highest when predicting orders independently with a multilayer perceptron (median F1 score = 0.56), but prediction frameworks that simultaneously predict orders for a visit enhanced predictive performance for correlated orders. Visit acuity was the most important predictor for most orders. Simulation results indicated that direct implementation of the model would increase ordering costs (from $21 to $45 per visit) but reduce length of stay (from 158 minutes to 151 minutes) over all visits. DISCUSSION: Simulated implementations of the predictive algorithm decreased length of stay but increased ordering costs. Optimal implementation of these predictions to reduce patient length of stay without incurring additional costs requires more exploration. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to predict common clinical orders placed during an ED visit with data available at triage. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2019.
OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) continue to pursue optimal patient flow without sacrificing quality of care. The speed with which a healthcare provider receives pertinent information, such as results from clinical orders, can impact flow. We seek to determine if clinical ordering behavior can be predicted at triage during an ED visit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data available during triage, we trained multilabel machine learning classifiers to predict clinical orders placed during an ED visit. We benchmarked 4 classifiers with 2 multilabel learning frameworks that predict orders independently (binary relevance) or simultaneously (random k-labelsets). We evaluated algorithm performance, calculated variable importance, and conducted a simple simulation study to examine the effects of algorithm implementation on length of stay and cost. RESULTS: Aggregate performance across orders was highest when predicting orders independently with a multilayer perceptron (median F1 score = 0.56), but prediction frameworks that simultaneously predict orders for a visit enhanced predictive performance for correlated orders. Visit acuity was the most important predictor for most orders. Simulation results indicated that direct implementation of the model would increase ordering costs (from $21 to $45 per visit) but reduce length of stay (from 158 minutes to 151 minutes) over all visits. DISCUSSION: Simulated implementations of the predictive algorithm decreased length of stay but increased ordering costs. Optimal implementation of these predictions to reduce patient length of stay without incurring additional costs requires more exploration. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to predict common clinical orders placed during an ED visit with data available at triage. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2019.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical decision support systems; emergency medicine; machine learning
Authors: Michael J Ward; Sean P Collins; Jesse M Pines; Curt Dill; Gary Tyndall; Chad S Kessler Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Brian H Rowe; Xiaoyan Guo; Cristina Villa-Roel; Michael Schull; Brian Holroyd; Michael Bullard; Benjamin Vandermeer; Maria Ospina; Grant Innes Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jillian K Gorski; Robert J Batt; Erkin Otles; Manish N Shah; Azita G Hamedani; Brian W Patterson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; Joseph Francis; Carolyn Clancy; Christopher Nielson; Karin Nelson; John Rumsfeld; Theresa Cullen; Jack Bates; Gail L Graham Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Steven Horng; David A Sontag; Yoni Halpern; Yacine Jernite; Nathan I Shapiro; Larry A Nathanson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andre Kumar; Rachael C Aikens; Jason Hom; Lisa Shieh; Jonathan Chiang; David Morales; Divya Saini; Mark Musen; Michael Baiocchi; Russ Altman; Mary K Goldstein; Steven Asch; Jonathan H Chen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.497