Dataset Information

Predicting preventable hospital readmissions with causal machine learning.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess both the feasibility and potential impact of predicting preventable hospital readmissions using causal machine learning applied to data from the implementation of a readmissions prevention intervention (the Transitions Program).

Data sources

Electronic health records maintained by Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).

Study design

Retrospective causal forest analysis of postdischarge outcomes among KPNC inpatients. Using data from both before and after implementation, we apply causal forests to estimate individual-level treatment effects of the Transitions Program intervention on 30-day readmission. These estimates are used to characterize treatment effect heterogeneity and to assess the notional impacts of alternative targeting strategies in terms of the number of readmissions prevented.

Data collection

1 539 285 index hospitalizations meeting the inclusion criteria and occurring between June 2010 and December 2018 at 21 KPNC hospitals.

Principal findings

There appears to be substantial heterogeneity in patients' responses to the intervention (omnibus test for heterogeneity p = 2.23 × 10^-7 ), particularly across levels of predicted risk. Notably, predicted treatment effects become more positive as predicted risk increases; patients at somewhat lower risk appear to have the largest predicted effects. Moreover, these estimates appear to be well calibrated, yielding the same estimate of annual readmissions prevented in the actual treatment subgroup (1246, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1110-1381) as did a formal evaluation of the Transitions Program (1210, 95% CI 990-1430). Estimates of the impacts of alternative targeting strategies suggest that as many as 4458 (95% CI 3925-4990) readmissions could be prevented annually, while decreasing the number needed to treat from 33 to 23, by targeting patients with the largest predicted effects rather than those at highest risk.

Conclusions

Causal machine learning can be used to identify preventable hospital readmissions, if the requisite interventional data are available. Moreover, our results suggest a mismatch between risk and treatment effects.

SUBMITTER: Marafino BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704477 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHospital readmissions are associated with patient harm and expense. Ways to prevent hospital readmissions have focused on identifying patients at greatest risk using prediction scores.ObjectiveTo identify the type of score that best predicts hospital readmissions.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study included 14?062 consecutive adult hospital patients with 16?649 discharges from a tertiary care center, suburban community hospital, and urban critical access hospital in Maryland from September 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Patients not included as eligible discharges by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or the Chesapeake Regional Information System for Our Patients were excluded. A machine learning rank score, the Baltimore score (B score) developed using a machine learning technique, for each individual hospital using data from the 2 years before September 1, 2016, was compared with standard readmission risk assessment scores to predict 30-day unplanned readmissions.Main outcomes and measuresThe 30-day readmission rate evaluated using various readmission scores: B score, HOSPITAL score, modified LACE score, and Maxim/RightCare score.ResultsOf the 10?732 patients (5605 [52.2%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.56 [22.42] years) deemed to be eligible for the study, 1422 were readmitted. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for individual rules was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for the HOSPITAL score, which was significantly lower than the 0.66 for modified LACE score (95% CI, 0.64-0.68; P?<?.001). The B score machine learning score was significantly better than all other scores; 48 hours after admission, the AUROC of the B score was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73), which increased to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.79) at discharge (all P?<?.001). At the hospital using Maxim/RightCare score, the AUROC was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.59-0.69) for HOSPITAL, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.68) for Maxim/RightCare, and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.69) for modified LACE score. The B score was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) 48 hours after admission and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) at discharge. In directly comparing the B score with the sensitivity at cutoff values for modified LACE, HOSPITAL, and Maxim/RightCare scores, the B score was able to identify the same number of readmitted patients while flagging 25.5% to 54.9% fewer patients.Conclusions and relevanceAmong 3 hospitals in different settings, an automated machine learning score better predicted readmissions than commonly used readmission scores. More efficiently targeting patients at higher risk of readmission may be the first step toward potentially preventing readmissions.

Project description:ObjectivesMachine learning algorithms are being increasingly used for predicting hospital readmissions. This meta-analysis evaluated the performance of logistic regression (LR) and machine learning (ML) models for the prediction of 30-day hospital readmission among patients in the US.MethodsElectronic databases (i.e., Medline, PubMed, and Embase) were searched from January 2015 to December 2019. Only studies in the English language were included. Two reviewers performed studies screening, quality appraisal, and data collection. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Model performance was evaluated using the Area Under the Curve (AUC). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using STATA 16.ResultsNine studies were included based on the selection criteria. The most common ML techniques were tree-based methods such as boosting and random forest. Most of the studies had a low risk of bias (8/9). The AUC was greater with ML to predict 30-day all-cause hospital readmission compared with LR [Mean Difference (MD): 0.03; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.01-0.05]. Subgroup analyses found that deep-learning methods had a better performance compared with LR (MD 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09), followed by neural networks (MD: 0.03; 95% CI, 0.03-0.03), while the AUCs of the tree-based (MD: 0.02; 95% CI -0.00-0.04) and kernel-based (MD: 0.02; 95% CI 0.02 (-0.13-0.16) methods were no different compared to LR. More than half of the studies evaluated heart failure-related rehospitalization (N = 5). For the readmission prediction among heart failure patients, ML performed better compared with LR, with a mean difference in AUC of 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.07). The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings.ConclusionMultiple ML methods were used to predict 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. Performance varied across the ML methods, with deep-learning methods showing the best performance over the LR.

Project description:ObjectiveTo predict hospital admission at the time of ED triage using patient history in addition to information collected at triage.MethodsThis retrospective study included all adult ED visits between March 2014 and July 2017 from one academic and two community emergency rooms that resulted in either admission or discharge. A total of 972 variables were extracted per patient visit. Samples were randomly partitioned into training (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) sets. We trained a series of nine binary classifiers using logistic regression (LR), gradient boosting (XGBoost), and deep neural networks (DNN) on three dataset types: one using only triage information, one using only patient history, and one using the full set of variables. Next, we tested the potential benefit of additional training samples by training models on increasing fractions of our data. Lastly, variables of importance were identified using information gain as a metric to create a low-dimensional model.ResultsA total of 560,486 patient visits were included in the study, with an overall admission risk of 29.7%. Models trained on triage information yielded a test AUC of 0.87 for LR (95% CI 0.86-0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87-0.88) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87-0.88). Models trained on patient history yielded an AUC of 0.86 for LR (95% CI 0.86-0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87-0.87) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87-0.88). Models trained on the full set of variables yielded an AUC of 0.91 for LR (95% CI 0.91-0.91), 0.92 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.92-0.93) and 0.92 for DNN (95% CI 0.92-0.92). All algorithms reached maximum performance at 50% of the training set or less. A low-dimensional XGBoost model built on ESI level, outpatient medication counts, demographics, and hospital usage statistics yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.91-0.91).ConclusionMachine learning can robustly predict hospital admission using triage information and patient history. The addition of historical information improves predictive performance significantly compared to using triage information alone, highlighting the need to incorporate these variables into prediction models.

Project description:BackgroundReadmissions after total joint arthroplasty have become a key quality measure in elective surgery in the United States. The Affordable Care Act includes the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, which calls for reduced payments to hospitals with excessive readmissions. This policy uses a method to determine excess readmission ratios and calculate readmission payment adjustments to hospitals, however, it is unclear whether readmission rates are an effective quality metric. The reasons or conditions associated with readmission after elective THA have been well established but the extent to which readmissions can be prevented after THA remains unclear.Questions/purposes(1) Are unplanned readmissions after THA associated with orthopaedic or medical causes? (2) Are these readmissions preventable? (3) When during the course of aftercare are orthopaedic versus medical readmissions more likely to occur?MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated all 1096 elective THAs for osteoarthritis performed between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014 at a major academic medical center. Of those, 69 patients (6%) who met inclusion criteria were readmitted in our healthcare system within 90 days of discharge after the index procedure during the study period. Fifty patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge after the index procedure (5%). We defined a readmission as any unplanned inpatient or observation status admission to the hospital spanning at least one midnight. A panel of physicians not involved in the care of these patients used available criteria and existing consensus guidelines to evaluate the medical records, radiographs, and operative reports to identify whether the underlying reason for readmission was orthopaedic versus medical. They subsequently were classified as either nonpreventable or potentially preventable readmissions, based on any care that may have occurred during the index hospitalization. To make such determinations, consensus specialty society guidelines were used whenever possible for each readmission diagnosis.ResultsA total of 50 of 1096 patients (5% of those who underwent THA during the period in question) were readmitted within 30 days and 69 of 1096 (6%) were readmitted within 90 days of their index procedures. Thirty-one patients were readmitted for orthopaedic reasons (31/69; 45%) and 38 of 69 were readmitted for medical reasons (55%). Three readmissions (three of 69; 4%) were identified as potentially preventable. Of these potentially preventable readmissions, one was orthopaedic (hip dislocation) and two were medical. Thirty-day readmissions were more likely to be orthopaedic than 90-day readmissions (odds ratio, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.18-13.96; p = 0.026).ConclusionsUsing a panel of expert reviewers, available existing criteria, and consensus methodology, it appears only a small percentage of readmissions after THA are potentially preventable. Orthopaedic readmissions occur earlier during the postoperative course. Currently, existing policies and readmission penalties may not serve as valuable external quality metrics. The readmission rates in our study may represent the threshold for expected readmission rates after THA. Future studies should enroll larger numbers of patients and have independent review panels in efforts to refine criteria for what constitutes preventable readmissions.Level of evidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.