Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31578568›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

Predicting emergency department orders with multilabel machine learning techniques and simulating effects on length of stay.

Haley S Hunter-Zinck, Jordan S Peck, Tania D Strout, Stephan A Gaehde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. PheWJAMIA open · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Economic evaluations of big data analytics for clinical decision-making: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Haley S Hunter-ZinckDepartment of Emergency Services, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jordan S PeckCenter for Performance Improvement, MaineHealth, Portland, Maine, USA.
Tania D StroutDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.
Stephan A GaehdeDepartment of Emergency Services, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEmergency 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

methodsUsing 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.

resultsAggregate 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.

conclusionsIt is possible to predict common clinical orders placed during an ED visit with data available at triage.

Indexed as

Machine LearningBenchmarkingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEmergency Service, HospitalHumansLength of StayPractice Patterns, Physicians'clinical decision support systemsemergency medicinemachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31578568
PMCPMC7647143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.