Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35739501›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Using machine learning to predict subsequent events after EMS non-conveyance decisions.

Jani Paulin, Akseli Reunamo, Jouni Kurola, Hans Moen, Sanna Salanterä, Heikki Riihimäki, Tero Vesanen, Mari Koivisto, Timo Iirola

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jani PaulinDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku and Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland. jani.paulin@utu.fi.ORCID 0000-0002-4038-3662
Akseli ReunamoDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Jouni KurolaCentre for Prehospital Emergency Care, Kuopio University Hospital and University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Hans MoenDepartment of Computing, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Sanna SalanteräDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2529-6699
Heikki RiihimäkiDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tero VesanenDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Mari KoivistoDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Timo IirolaEmergency Medical Services, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
University of Turku · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredictors of subsequent events after Emergency Medical Services (EMS) non-conveyance decisions are still unclear, though patient safety is the priority in prehospital emergency care. The aim of this study was to find out whether machine learning can be used in this context and to identify the predictors of subsequent events based on narrative texts of electronic patient care records (ePCR).

methodsThis was a prospective cohort study of EMS patients in Finland. The data was collected from three different regions between June 1 and November 30, 2018. Machine learning, in form of text classification, and manual evaluation were used to predict subsequent events from the clinical notes after a non-conveyance mission.

resultsFastText-model (AUC 0.654) performed best in prediction of subsequent events after EMS non-conveyance missions (n = 11,846). The model and manual analyses showed that many of the subsequent events were planned before, EMS guided the patients to visit primary health care facilities or ED next or following days after non-conveyance. The most frequent signs and symptoms as subsequent event predictors were musculoskeletal-, infection-related and non-specific complaints. 1 in 5 the EMS documentation was inadequate and many of these led to a subsequent event.

conclusionMachine learning can be used to predict subsequent events after EMS non-conveyance missions. From the patient safety perspective, it is notable that subsequent event does not necessarily mean that patient safety is compromised. There were a number of subsequent visits to primary health care or EDs, which were planned before by EMS. This demonstrates the appropriate use of limited resources to avoid unnecessary conveyance to the ED. However, further studies are needed without planned subsequent events to find out the harmful subsequent events, where EMS non-conveyance puts patient safety at risk.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesDocumentationHumansMachine LearningPatient SafetyProspective StudiesDocumentationEmergency medical serviceMachine learningNon-conveyancePatient safetySubsequent eventText classification

Identifiers

PMID35739501
PMCPMC9229877
OpenAlexW4283398091

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.