Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33556123›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

SafeNET: Initial development and validation of a real-time tool for predicting mortality risk at the time of hospital transfer to a higher level of care.

Stefanie C Altieri Dunn, Johanna E Bellon, Andrew Bilderback, Jeffrey D Borrebach, Jacob C Hodges, Mary Kay Wisniewski, Matthew E Harinstein, Tamra E Minnier, Joel B Nelson, Daniel E Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Stefanie C Altieri DunnThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Johanna E BellonThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Andrew BilderbackThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jeffrey D BorrebachThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jacob C HodgesThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9898-4148
Mary Kay WisniewskiThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Matthew E HarinsteinHeart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Tamra E MinnierThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Joel B NelsonDepartment of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Daniel E HallThe Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6382-0522

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcesses for transferring patients to higher acuity facilities lack a standardized approach to prognostication, increasing the risk for low value care that imposes significant burdens on patients and their families with unclear benefits. We sought to develop a rapid and feasible tool for predicting mortality using variables readily available at the time of hospital transfer. METHODS AND

findingsAll work was carried out at a single, large, multi-hospital integrated healthcare system. We used a retrospective cohort for model development consisting of patients aged 18 years or older transferred into the healthcare system from another hospital, hospice, skilled nursing or other healthcare facility with an admission priority of direct emergency admit. The cohort was randomly divided into training and test sets to develop first a 54-variable, and then a 14-variable gradient boosting model to predict the primary outcome of all cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality and transition to comfort measures only or hospice care. For model validation, we used a prospective cohort consisting of all patients transferred to a single, tertiary care hospital from one of the 3 referring hospitals, excluding patients transferred for myocardial infarction or maternal labor and delivery. Prospective validation was performed by using a web-based tool to calculate the risk of mortality at the time of transfer. Observed outcomes were compared to predicted outcomes to assess model performance. The development cohort included 20,985 patients with 1,937 (9.2%) in-hospital mortalities, 2,884 (13.7%) 30-day mortalities, and 3,899 (18.6%) 90-day mortalities. The 14-variable gradient boosting model effectively predicted in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality (c = 0.903 [95% CI:0.891-0.916]), c = 0.877 [95% CI:0.864-0.890]), and c = 0.869 [95% CI:0.857-0.881], respectively). The tool was proven feasible and valid for bedside implementation in a prospective cohort of 679 sequentially transferred patients for whom the bedside nurse calculated a SafeNET score at the time of transfer, taking only 4-5 minutes per patient with discrimination consistent with the development sample for in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality (c = 0.836 [95%CI: 0.751-0.921], 0.815 [95% CI: 0.730-0.900], and 0.794 [95% CI: 0.725-0.864], respectively).

conclusionsThe SafeNET algorithm is feasible and valid for real-time, bedside mortality risk prediction at the time of hospital transfer. Work is ongoing to build pathways triggered by this score that direct needed resources to the patients at greatest risk of poor outcomes.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleForecastingHospitalizationHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPatient TransferRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID33556123
PMCPMC7870086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.