ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Improving event prediction using general practitioner clinical judgement in a digital risk stratification model: a pilot study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous tools based on electronic health record (EHR) data that predict risk of unscheduled care and mortality exist. These are often criticised due to lack of external validation, potential for low predictive ability and the use of thresholds that can lead to large numbers being escalated for assessment that would not have an adverse outcome leading to unsuccessful active case management. Evidence supports the importance of clinical judgement in risk prediction particularly when ruling out disease. The aim of this pilot study was to explore performance analysis of a digitally driven risk stratification model combined with GP clinical judgement to identify patients with escalating urgent care and mortality events.
methodsClinically risk stratified cohort study of 6 GP practices in a deprived, multi-ethnic UK city. Initial digital driven risk stratification into Escalated and Non-escalated groups used 7 risk factors. The Escalated group underwent stratification using GP global clinical judgement (GCJ) into Concern and No concern groupings.
results3968 out of 31,392 patients were data stratified into the Escalated group and further categorised into No concern (n = 3450 (10.9%)) or Concern (n = 518 (1.7%)) by GPs. The 30-day combined event rate (unscheduled care or death) per 1,000 was 19.0 in the whole population, 67.8 in the Escalated group and 168.0 in the Concern group (p < 0.001). The de-escalation effect of GP assessment into No Concern versus Concern was strongly negatively predictive (OR 0.25 (95%CI 0.19-0.33; p < 0.001)). The whole population ROC for the global approach (Non-escalated, GP No Concern, GP Concern) was 0.614 (0.592-0.637), p < 0.001, and the increase in the ROC area under the curve for 30-day events was all focused here (+ 0.4% (0.3-0.6%, p < 0.001), translating into a specific ROC c-statistic for GP GCJ of 0.603 ((0.565-0.642), p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe digital only component of the model performed well but adding GP clinical judgement significantly improved risk prediction, particularly by adding negative predictive value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.