Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Data Intelligence for Health Lab, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 27;15(8):e0237937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237937. eCollection 2020.
The recent literature reports promising results from using intelligent systems to support decision making in healthcare operations. Using these systems may lead to improved diagnostic and treatment protocols and to predict hospital bed demand. Predicting hospital bed demand in emergency department (ED) attendances could help resource allocation and reduce pressure on busy hospitals. However, there is still limited knowledge on whether intelligent systems can operate as fully autonomous, user-independent systems.
Compare the performance of a computer-based algorithm and humans in predicting hospital bed demand (admissions and discharges) based on the initial SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) records of the ED.
This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the performance of humans and machines in predicting hospital bed demand from an ED. It considered electronic medical records (EMR) of 9030 patients (230 used as a testing set, and hence evaluated both by humans and by an algorithm, and 8800 used as a training set exclusively by the algorithm) who visited the ED of a tertiary care and teaching public hospital located in Porto Alegre, Brazil between January and December 2014. The machine role was played by Support Vector Machine Classifier and the human prediction was performed by four ED physicians. Predictions were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
All graders achieved similar accuracies. The accuracy by AUROC for the testing set was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.77-0.87], 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.85), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.81) for novice physicians, machine, experienced physicians, respectively. Processing time per test EMR was 0.00812±0.0009 seconds. In contrast, novice physicians took on average 156.80 seconds per test EMR, while experienced physicians took on average 56.40 seconds per test EMR.
Our data indicated that the system could predict patient admission or discharge states with 80% accuracy, which was similar the performance of novice and experienced physicians. These results suggested that the algorithm could operate as an autonomous and independent system to complete this task.
最近的文献报道称,使用智能系统支持医疗保健运营中的决策具有很大的前景。使用这些系统可能会改进诊断和治疗方案,并预测医院床位需求。预测急诊科(ED)就诊的医院床位需求有助于资源分配,并减轻繁忙医院的压力。然而,对于智能系统是否可以作为完全自主、用户独立的系统运行,仍然知之甚少。
比较基于 ED 的初始 SOAP(主观、客观、评估、计划)记录的计算机算法和人类预测医院床位需求(入院和出院)的性能。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,比较了人类和机器在预测 ED 中医院床位需求方面的性能。它考虑了 9030 名患者的电子病历(EMR)(230 名作为测试集,因此由人类和算法同时评估,8800 名作为训练集仅由算法使用),这些患者于 2014 年 1 月至 12 月期间在巴西阿雷格里港的一家三级护理和教学公立医院的 ED 就诊。机器角色由支持向量机分类器扮演,而人类预测由四名 ED 医生完成。根据敏感性、特异性、准确性和接收器操作特征曲线(AUROC)下的面积来比较预测。
所有评分者的准确性都相似。测试集的 AUROC 准确率为 0.82(95%置信区间 [0.77-0.87])、0.80(95%置信区间 [0.75-0.85])、0.76(95%置信区间 [0.71-0.81]),分别为新手医生、机器和经验丰富的医生。每个 EMR 测试的处理时间为 0.00812±0.0009 秒。相比之下,新手医生平均每个 EMR 测试需要 156.80 秒,而经验丰富的医生平均每个 EMR 测试需要 56.40 秒。
我们的数据表明,该系统可以以 80%的准确率预测患者的入院或出院状态,这与新手和经验丰富的医生的表现相似。这些结果表明,该算法可以作为一个自主和独立的系统来完成这项任务。