Parry Emma, Ahmed Kamran, Guest Elizabeth, Klaire Vijay, Koodaruth Abdool, Labutale Prasadika, Matthews Dawn, Lampitt Jonathan, Nevill Alan, Pickavance Gillian, Sidhu Mona, Warren Kate, Singh Baldev M
School of Medicine, Keele University, University Road, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, WV10 0Q, UK.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024 Dec 18;24(1):382. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02797-5.
Numerous 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.
Clinically 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.
3968 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).
The digital only component of the model performed well but adding GP clinical judgement significantly improved risk prediction, particularly by adding negative predictive value.
基于电子健康记录(EHR)数据的众多工具可预测非计划护理和死亡风险。这些工具常因缺乏外部验证、预测能力可能较低以及使用的阈值可能导致大量患者被升级评估但最终并无不良后果,从而导致主动病例管理失败而受到批评。有证据支持临床判断在风险预测中的重要性,尤其是在排除疾病时。这项试点研究的目的是探索一种数字驱动的风险分层模型与全科医生临床判断相结合的性能分析,以识别紧急护理需求增加和死亡事件的患者。
在英国一个贫困的多民族城市对6家全科医生诊所进行临床风险分层队列研究。最初通过7个风险因素将患者数字驱动风险分层为升级组和未升级组。升级组通过全科医生的整体临床判断(GCJ)进一步分层为关注组和非关注组。
在31392名患者中,3968名患者被数据分层到升级组,全科医生进一步将其分为非关注组(n = 3450(10.9%))或关注组(n = 518(1.7%))。每1000人的30天综合事件发生率(非计划护理或死亡)在总体人群中为19.0,在升级组中为67.8,在关注组中为168.0(p < 0.001)。全科医生评估将患者降级为非关注组与关注组的效果具有强烈的负预测性(OR 0.25(95%CI 0.19 - 0.33;p < 0.001))。整体方法(未升级组、全科医生非关注组、全科医生关注组)对于30天事件的总体人群ROC为0.614(0.592 - 0.637),p < 0.001,并且曲线下面积(ROC)中30天事件的增加全部集中在此处(+0.4%(0.3 - 0.6%,p < 0.001)),转化为全科医生GCJ的特定ROC c统计量为0.603((0.565 - 0.642),p < 0.001)。
该模型仅数字部分表现良好,但加入全科医生临床判断显著改善了风险预测,特别是通过增加阴性预测值。