Cited by 76Machine Learning in HealthcareHospital Admissions and OutcomesElectronic Health Records Systems

Predicting all‐cause readmissions using electronic health record data from the entire hospitalization: Model development and comparison

Open access
Nguyen, Oanh Kieu, Makam, Anil N., Clark, Christopher, Zhang, Song, Xie, Bin, Velasco, Ferdinand, Amarasingham, Ruben, Halm, Ethan A.·2016·Journal of Hospital Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Incorporating clinical information from the full hospital course may improve prediction of 30‐day readmissions. OBJECTIVE: To develop an all‐cause readmissions risk‐prediction model incorporating electronic health record (EHR) data from the full hospital stay, and to compare “full‐stay” model performance to a “first day” and 2 other validated models, LACE (includes Length of stay, Acute [nonelective] admission status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Emergency department visits in the past year), and HOSPITAL (includes Hemoglobin at discharge, discharge from Oncology service, Sodium level at discharge, Procedure during index hospitalization, Index hospitalization Type [nonelective], number of Admissions in the past year, and Length of stay). DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SUBJECTS: All medicine discharges between November 2009 and October 2010 from 6 hospitals in North Texas, including safety net, teaching, and nonteaching sites. MEASURES: Thirty‐day nonelective readmissions were ascertained from 75 regional hospitals. RESULTS: Among 32,922 admissions (validation = 16,430), 12.7% were readmitted. In addition to many first‐day factors, we identified hospital‐acquired Clostridium difficile infection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18‐3.48), vital sign instability on discharge (AOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.15‐1.36), hyponatremia on discharge (AOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.18‐1.51), and length of stay (AOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04‐1.07) as significant predictors. The full‐stay model had better discrimination than other models though the improvement was modest (C statistic 0.69 vs 0.64‐0.67). It was also modestly better in identifying patients at highest risk for readmission (likelihood ratio +2.4 vs. 1.8–2.1) and in reclassifying individuals (net reclassification index 0.02–0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating clinically granular EHR data from the full hospital stay modestly improves prediction of 30‐day readmissions. Given limited improvement in prediction despite incorporation of data on hospital complications, clinical instabilities, and trajectory, our findings suggest that many factors influencing readmissions remain unaccounted for. Further improvements in readmission models will likely require accounting for psychosocial and behavioral factors not currently captured by EHRs. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:473–480. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jhm.2568

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To the best of the authors' knowledge, their models outperform existing EHR models in the medical literature for predicting mortality (0.92-0.94 vs 0.91), unexpected readmission (0.75-0.76 vs 0.69), and increased length of stay (0.85-0.86 vs 0.77).

    “To the best of our knowledge, our models outperform existing EHR models in the medical literature for predicting mortality (0.92–0.94 vs 0.91),42 unexpected readmission (0.75–0.76 vs 0.69),43 and increased length of stay (0.85–0.86 vs 0.77).44”

    From Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

    Citation 43 supports the 0.69 comparator: the Results (Derivation and Validation of the Full-Stay EHR Model for 30-Day Readmission; page unavailable) report a C statistic of 0.69. The paper predicts all-cause 30-day readmission, however, not specifically unexpected readmission. It does not assess the citing authors’ models or their reported 0.75–0.76 values. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, O. K., Makam, A. N., Clark, C., Zhang, S., Xie, B., Velasco, F., Amarasingham, R., & Halm, E. A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Parkland Center For Clinical Innovation (US)
  • Texas Health Resources Dallas Texas
Venue
Journal of Hospital Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-29
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
473-480
ISSN
  • 1553-5592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-5606
OpenAlex
W2279842060
Cited by
76
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4
FWCI
9.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded UT Southwestern Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (1R24HS022418-01)
  • Commonwealth Foundation (#20100323)
  • UT Southwestern KL2 Scholars Program (NIH/NCATS KL2 TR001103)
  • NIH/NCATS (U54 RFA-TR-12-006)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
all-cause readmission, electronic health record data, hospital model, Clostridium difficile infection, hyponatremia, length of hospital stay, model discrimination, net reclassification improvement, safety-net hospitals, teaching hospitals
MeSH terms
Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Patient Readmission, Risk Factors, Texas, Cohort Studies, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review