Developing machine learning models to personalize care levels among emergency room patients for hospital admission. (17th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nguyen, Minh; Corbin, Conor K; Eulalio, Tiffany; Ostberg, Nicolai P; Machiraju, Gautam; Marafino, Ben J; Baiocchi, Michael; Rose, Christian; Chen, Jonathan H
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. Volume 28:Number 11(2021)
• Page Start: 2423
• Page End: 2432
• Publication Date: 2021-08-17
• Subjects: triage -- machine learning -- electronic health records -- medical informatics -- clinical decision support -- emergency medicine; Medical informatics -- Periodicals; Information Services -- Periodicals; Medical Informatics -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Informatique -- Périodiques; Informatica; Geneeskunde; Informatique médicale; Computer network resources; Electronic journals; 610.285
• DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocab118
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1067-5027

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To develop prediction models for intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU level-of-care need within 24 hours of inpatient admission for emergency department (ED) patients using electronic health record data. Materials and Methods: Using records of 41 654 ED visits to a tertiary academic center from 2015 to 2019, we tested 4 algorithms—feed-forward neural networks, regularized regression, random forests, and gradient-boosted trees—to predict ICU vs non-ICU level-of-care within 24 hours and at the 24th hour following admission. Simple-feature models included patient demographics, Emergency Severity Index (ESI), and vital sign summary. Complex-feature models added all vital signs, lab results, and counts of diagnosis, imaging, procedures, medications, and lab orders. Results: The best-performing model, a gradient-boosted tree using a full feature set, achieved an AUROC of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.87–0.89) and AUPRC of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.63–0.68) for predicting ICU care need within 24 hours of admission. The logistic regression model using ESI achieved an AUROC of 0.67 (95%CI: 0.65–0.70) and AUPRC of 0.37 (95%CI: 0.35–0.40). Using a discrimination threshold, such as 0.6, the positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were 85%, 89%, 30%, and 99%, respectively. Vital signs were the most important predictors. Discussion and Conclusions: Undertriaging admitted ED patients who subsequently require ICU care is common and associated with poorer outcomes. Machine learning models using readily available electronic health record data predict subsequent need for ICU admission with good discrimination, substantially better than the benchmarking ESI system. The results could be used in a multitiered clinical decision-support system to improve ED triage.