Henry Katharine E, Hager David N, Osborn Tiffany M, Wu Albert W, Saria Suchi
Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Crit Care Explor. 2019 Oct 30;1(10):e0053. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000053. eCollection 2019 Oct.
To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data.
Retrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018.
One community and two academic hospitals in Maryland.
All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department.
None.
From the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of "the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit" that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed "billing code sensitivity" and "billing code predictive value." Physician review of electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93), electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30-0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11-0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07-0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.31). Electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3.
By accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis.
开发并评估一种利用电子健康记录数据自动进行脓毒症回顾性识别的新策略。
对2014年至2018年急诊科和住院患者就诊情况进行回顾性队列研究。
马里兰州的一家社区医院和两家学术医院。
所有18岁及以上到急诊科就诊或入住任何急性内科或外科住院病房的患者,包括从急诊科出院的患者。
无。
从电子健康记录中识别出233,252次急诊科和住院患者就诊情况。患者数据用于开发和验证基于电子健康记录的脓毒症表型分析,这是对“疾病控制中心成人脓毒症事件工具包”的一种改编,在识别脓毒症患者时考虑了合并症。然后将这个新系统的性能与1)医生病例审查和2)其他三种常用策略进行比较,使用相对于脓毒症计费代码的敏感性和精确性指标,即“计费代码敏感性”和“计费代码预测值”。医生对基于电子健康记录的脓毒症表型分析进行审查,确定79%的病例确诊为脓毒症;88%的病例确诊或有脓毒症计费代码;99%的病例确诊、有计费代码或接受了至少4天的抗生素治疗。在可比的计费代码敏感性(0.91;95%CI,0.88 - 0.93)下,基于电子健康记录的脓毒症表型分析的计费代码预测值(0.32;95%CI,0.30 - 0.34)高于医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心脓毒症核心指标(SEP - 1)定义或脓毒症 - 3共识定义(分别为0.12;95%CI,0.11 - 0.13和0.07;95%CI,0.07 - 0.08)。与基于电子健康记录的脓毒症表型分析相比,成人脓毒症事件的计费代码敏感性较低(0.75;95%CI,0.72 - 0.78),计费代码预测值相似(0.29;95%CI,0.26 - 0.31)。与SEP - 1和脓毒症 - 3相比,基于电子健康记录的脓毒症表型分析识别出的患者院内死亡率更高,假阳性病例减少近一半。
通过考虑合并症,基于电子健康记录的脓毒症表型分析与其他脓毒症自动定义相比表现出更好的性能。