Jinwoo Jeong1, Sung Woo Lee2, Won Young Kim3, Kap Su Han4, Su Jin Kim4, Hyungoo Kang5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Dong-A University, College of Medicine, 49201 DaesinGongwon-Ro 26, Seo-Gu, Busan, South Korea. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Korea University, College of Medicine, 02841 Goryeodae-Ro 73, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, South Korea. kuedlee@korea.ac.kr. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 05505 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil 88, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Korea University, College of Medicine, 02841 Goryeodae-Ro 73, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Hanyang University, College of Medicine, 04763 Wangsimni-Ro 222-1, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In-hospital mortality and short-term mortality are indicators that are commonly used to evaluate the outcome of emergency department (ED) treatment. Although several scoring systems and machine learning-based approaches have been suggested to grade the severity of the condition of ED patients, methods for comparing severity-adjusted mortality in general ED patients between different systems have yet to be developed. The aim of the present study was to develop a scoring system to predict mortality in ED patients using data collected at the initial evaluation and to validate the usefulness of the scoring system for comparing severity-adjusted mortality between institutions with different severity distributions. METHODS: The study was based on the registry of the National Emergency Department Information System, which is maintained by the National Emergency Medical Center of the Republic of Korea. Data from 2016 were used to construct the prediction model, and data from 2017 were used for validation. Logistic regression was used to build the mortality prediction model. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the performance of the prediction model. We calculated the standardized W statistic and its 95% confidence intervals using the newly developed mortality prediction model. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the developed scoring system for the prediction of mortality was 0.883 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.882-0.884). The Ws score calculated from the 2016 dataset was 0.000 (95% CI: - 0.021 - 0.021). The Ws score calculated from the 2017 dataset was 0.049 (95% CI: 0.030-0.069). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system developed in the present study utilizing the parameters gathered in initial ED evaluations has acceptable performance for the prediction of in-hospital mortality. Standardized W statistics based on this scoring system can be used to compare the performance of an ED with the reference data or with the performance of other institutions.
BACKGROUND: In-hospital mortality and short-term mortality are indicators that are commonly used to evaluate the outcome of emergency department (ED) treatment. Although several scoring systems and machine learning-based approaches have been suggested to grade the severity of the condition of ED patients, methods for comparing severity-adjusted mortality in general ED patients between different systems have yet to be developed. The aim of the present study was to develop a scoring system to predict mortality in ED patients using data collected at the initial evaluation and to validate the usefulness of the scoring system for comparing severity-adjusted mortality between institutions with different severity distributions. METHODS: The study was based on the registry of the National Emergency Department Information System, which is maintained by the National Emergency Medical Center of the Republic of Korea. Data from 2016 were used to construct the prediction model, and data from 2017 were used for validation. Logistic regression was used to build the mortality prediction model. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the performance of the prediction model. We calculated the standardized W statistic and its 95% confidence intervals using the newly developed mortality prediction model. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the developed scoring system for the prediction of mortality was 0.883 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.882-0.884). The Ws score calculated from the 2016 dataset was 0.000 (95% CI: - 0.021 - 0.021). The Ws score calculated from the 2017 dataset was 0.049 (95% CI: 0.030-0.069). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system developed in the present study utilizing the parameters gathered in initial ED evaluations has acceptable performance for the prediction of in-hospital mortality. Standardized W statistics based on this scoring system can be used to compare the performance of an ED with the reference data or with the performance of other institutions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health care evaluation mechanisms; Health care quality, access, and evaluation; Hospital mortality; Prognosis
Authors: Jesse M Pines; Christopher Fee; Gregory J Fermann; Anthony A Ferroggiaro; Charlene B Irvin; Maryann Mazer; W Frank Peacock; Jeremiah D Schuur; Ellen J Weber; Charles V Pollack Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Peter Jones; Susan Wells; Alana Harper; James Le Fevre; Joanna Stewart; Elana Curtis; Papaarangi Reid; Shanthi Ameratunga Journal: N Z Med J Date: 2017-05-12
Authors: Leonie de Munter; Suzanne Polinder; Koen W W Lansink; Maryse C Cnossen; Ewout W Steyerberg; Mariska A C de Jongh Journal: Injury Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Oh Hyun Kim; Young Il Roh; Hyung Il Kim; Yong Sung Cha; Kyoung Chul Cha; Hyun Kim; Sung Oh Hwang; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Jae Yong Yu; Feng Xie; Liu Nan; Sunyoung Yoon; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Yih Yng Ng; Won Chul Cha Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 4.996