Dataset Information

Predicting 30-day return hospital admissions in patients with COVID-19 discharged from the emergency department: A national retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at risk for deterioration after discharge from the emergency department (ED) remains a clinical challenge. Our objective was to develop a prediction model that identifies patients with COVID-19 at risk for return and hospital admission within 30 days of ED discharge.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of discharged adult ED patients (n = 7529) with SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 unique hospitals contributing to the National Registry of Suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Care. The primary outcome was return hospital admission within 30 days. Models were developed using classification and regression tree (CART), gradient boosted machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and least absolute shrinkage and selection (LASSO) approaches.

Results

Among patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED on their index encounter, 571 (7.6%) returned for hospital admission within 30 days. The machine-learning (ML) models (GBM, RF, and LASSO) performed similarly. The RF model yielded a test area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78), with a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.39-0.54) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.82-0.85). Predictive variables, including lowest oxygen saturation, temperature, or history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or obesity, were common to all ML models.

Conclusions

A predictive model identifying adult ED patients with COVID-19 at risk for return for return hospital admission within 30 days is feasible. Ensemble/boot-strapped classification methods (eg, GBM, RF, and LASSO) outperform the single-tree CART method. Future efforts may focus on the application of ML models in the hospital setting to optimize the allocation of follow-up resources.

SUBMITTER: Beiser DG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8716570 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypertension (HTN) is common in discharged emergency department (ED) patients, yet the short-term outcomes of treating HTN at ED discharge are unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether emergency physician (EP) prescription of oral antihypertensive therapy at ED discharge for hypertensive patients is associated with a decreased 30-day risk of the severe adverse events (AEs), death, and revisits to the ED.MethodsWe conducted an observational cohort study assessing the 30-day outcomes of discharged ED patients with HTN, comparing outcomes based on whether antihypertensive therapy was prescribed. All discharged adult ED patients from an eight-hospital system with a diagnosis of HTN from January 2016 to February 2020 were screened, and consisted of a mix of suburban and urban patients with broad ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Patients were categorized into the treatment group if they received a prescription for antihypertensive medication at ED discharge. The primary outcome was severe composite AEs from HTN (aortic catastrophe, heart failure, myocardial infarction, hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke, or hypertensive encephalopathy) within 30 days of ED discharge. The secondary outcomes were death or ED revisit over the same period.ResultsThe study sample consisted of 93,512 ED visits; 57.5% were female, and mean age was 59.3 years. 4.7% of patients were prescribed antihypertensive treatment at ED discharge. Within 30 days, 0.7% of patients experienced an AE, 0.1% died, and 15.2% had an ED revisit. The treatment group had significantly lower odds of AE (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.224, 95%CI 0.106-0.416, p < 0.001), and ED revisits (aOR: 0.610, 95%CI 0.547-0.678, p < 0.001), adjusting for age, race, degree of HTN, ED treatment for elevated HTN, Elixhauser comorbidity index, and heart failure history. There was no difference in odds of death 30 days after discharge.Conclusion and relevancePrescription antihypertensive therapy for discharged ED patients is associated with a 30-day decrease in severe adverse events and ED revisit rate.

Project description:ObjectivesTo predict 72-h and 9-day emergency department (ED) return by using gradient boosting on an expansive set of clinical variables from the electronic health record.MethodsThis retrospective study included all adult discharges from a level 1 trauma center ED and a community hospital ED covering the period of March 2013 to July 2017. A total of 1500 variables were extracted for each visit, and samples split randomly into training, validation, and test sets (80%, 10%, and 10%). Gradient boosting models were fit on 3 selections of the data: administrative data (demographics, prior hospital usage, and comorbidity categories), data available at triage, and the full set of data available at discharge. A logistic regression (LR) model built on administrative data was used for baseline comparison. Finally, the top 20 most informative variables identified from the full gradient boosting models were used to build a reduced model for each outcome.ResultsA total of 330 631 discharges were available for analysis, with 29 058 discharges (8.8%) resulting in 72-h return and 52 748 discharges (16.0%) resulting in 9-day return to either ED. LR models using administrative data yielded test AUCs of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.70) and 0.71(95% CI 0.70-0.72), while gradient boosting models using administrative data yielded test AUCs of 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.74) for 72-h and 9-day return, respectively. Gradient boosting models using variables available at triage yielded test AUCs of 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.75), while those using the full set of variables yielded test AUCs of 0.76 (95% CI 0.75-0.77) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.75-0.76). Reduced models using the top 20 variables yielded test AUCs of 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74).Discussion and conclusionGradient boosting models leveraging clinical data are superior to LR models built on administrative data at predicting 72-h and 9-day returns.

Project description:ObjectivesPublished literature on national emergency department (ED) revisit rates among older adults with dementia is sparse, despite anecdotal evidence of higher ED utilization. Thus we evaluated the odds ratio (OR) of 30-day ED revisits among older adults with dementia using a nationally representative sample.DesignWe assessed the frequency of claims associated with a 30-day ED revisit among Medicare beneficiaries with and without a dementia diagnosis before or at index ED visit. We used a logistic regression model controlling for dementia, age, sex, race, region, Medicaid status, transfer to a skilled nursing facility after ED, primary care physician use 12 months before index, and comorbidity.SettingA nationally representative sample of claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who maintained continuous fee-for-service enrollment during 2015 and 2016. Only outpatient claims associated with an ED visit between January 2016 and November 2016 were included as a qualifying index encounter.ParticipantsWe identified 240 249 patients without dementia and 54 622 patients for whom a dementia code was recorded in the year before the index encounter in 2016.ResultsOur results indicate a significant difference in unadjusted 30-day ED revisit rates among those with an ED dementia diagnoses (22.0%) compared with those without (13.9%). Our adjusted results indicated that dementia is a significant predictor of 30-day ED revisits (P < .0001). Those with a dementia diagnosis at or before the index ED visit were more likely to have experienced an ED revisit within 30 days (OR = 1.27; 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.31).ConclusionDementia diagnoses were a significant predictor of 30-day ED revisits. Further research should assess potential reasons why dementia is associated with markedly higher revisit rates, as well as opportunities to manage and transition dementia patients from the ED back to the community more effectively. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2254-2259, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) see a rising number of patients, but only a small fraction of ED patients need immediate intensive care. The characteristics of these patients are mostly unknown and there is reason to believe that there are large inter-hospital differences in thresholds for intensive care admissions from the ED. The purpose of this study was to give a nationwide overview of ED admissions directly to intensive care units.MethodsWe used the Swedish Intensive care Registry to identify all patients admitted to intensive care from the ED (January 1, 2013 until June 7, 2018). The primary outcome was discharge diagnosis after intensive care (primary ICU diagnosis code). ICU mortality and" ICU admission due to only observation" were analyzed as secondary outcomes.Results110,072 ICU admissions were included, representing 94,546 unique patients. Intoxication, trauma and neurological conditions were the most common causes for intensive care, but large variations according to age, sex and hospital type were seen. Intoxication was the most prevalent diagnosis in young adults (46.8% of admissions in 18-29 years old), whereas infectious diseases predominated in the elderly (17.0% in 65-79 years old). Overall, ICU mortality was 7.2%, but varied substantially with age, sex, type of hospital and medical condition. Cardiac conditions had the highest mortality rates, reaching 32.9%. The mortality was higher in academic centers compared to rural hospitals (9.3% vs 5.0%). It was more common to be admitted to ICU for only observation in rural hospitals than in academic centers (20.1% vs 7.8%). Being admitted to ICU only for observation was most common in patients with intoxication (30.6%).ConclusionsOverall, intoxication was the most common cause for ICU admission from the ED. However, causes of ED ICU admissions differ substantially according to age, sex and hospital type. Being admitted to the ICU only for observation was most common in intoxicated patients.Trial registrationNot applicable (no interventions).

Project description:ObjectiveRising emergency medical services (EMS) utilisation increases transport to hospital emergency departments (ED). However, some patients receive outpatient treatment (discharged) while others are hospitalised (admitted). The aims of this analysis were to compare admitted and discharged cases, to assess whether cases that were discharged from the ED could be identified using dispatch data and to compare dispatch keyword categories and hospital diagnoses.DesignRetrospective observational study using linked secondary data.Setting and participants78 303 cases brought to 1 of 14 ED in the city of Munich, Germany, by EMS between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014.Main outcome measuresCharacteristics of admitted and discharged cases were assessed. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between discharge and age, sex, time of day, ambulance type and dispatch keyword category. Keyword categories were compared to hospital diagnoses.Results39.4% of cases were discharged. They were especially likely to be young (OR 10.53 (CI 9.31 to 11.92), comparing <15-year-olds to >70-year-olds) and to fall under the categories 'accidents/trauma' (OR 2.87 (CI 2.74 to 3.01)) or 'other emergencies (unspecified)' (OR 1.23 (CI 1.12 to 1.34) (compared with 'cardiovascular'). Most frequent diagnoses came from chapter 'injury and poisoning' (30.1%) of the 10th revision of the international statistical classification of disease and related health problems (ICD-10), yet these diagnoses were more frequent at discharge (42.7 vs 22.0%) whereas circulatory system disease was less frequent (2.6 vs 21.8%). Except for accidents/trauma and intoxication/poisoning many underlying diagnoses were observed for the same dispatch keyword.ConclusionYoung age and dispatch for accidents or trauma were the strongest predictors of discharge. Even within the same dispatch keyword category the distribution of diagnoses differed between admitted and discharged cases. Discharge from the ED does not indicate that urgent response was unnecessary. However, these cases could be suitable for allocation to hospitals with low inpatient bed capacities and are of particular interest for future studies regarding the urgency of their condition.