Cited by 10Emergency and Acute Care StudiesMachine Learning in HealthcareHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

Prospective External Validation of a Commercial Model Predicting the Likelihood of Inpatient Admission From the Emergency Department

Dadabhoy, Farah Z., Driver, Lachlan, McEvoy, Dustin S., Stevens, Ronelle, Rubins, David, Dutta, Sayon·2023·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective Early notification of admissions from the emergency department (ED) may allow hospitals to plan for inpatient bed demand. This study aimed to assess Epic's ED Likelihood to Occupy an Inpatient Bed predictive model and its application in improving hospital bed planning workflows. Methods All ED adult (18 years and older) visits from September 2021 to August 2022 at a large regional health care system were included. The primary outcome was inpatient admission. The predictive model is a random forest algorithm that uses demographic and clinical features. The model was implemented prospectively, with scores generated every 15 minutes. The area under the receiver operator curves (AUROC) and precision-recall curves (AUPRC) were calculated using the maximum score prior to the outcome and for each prediction independently. Test characteristics and lead time were calculated over a range of model score thresholds. Results Over 11 months, 329,194 encounters were evaluated, with an incidence of inpatient admission of 25.4%. The encounter-level AUROC was 0.849 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.848 to 0.851), and the AUPRC was 0.643 (95% CI, 0.640 to 0.647). With a prediction horizon of 6 hours, the AUROC was 0.758 (95% CI, 0.758 to 0.759,) and the AUPRC was 0.470 (95% CI, 0.469 to 0.471). At a predictive model threshold of 40, the sensitivity was 0.49, the positive predictive value was 0.65, and the median lead-time warning was 127 minutes before the inpatient bed request.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.11.012

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dadabhoy, F. Z., Driver, L., McEvoy, D. S., Stevens, R., Rubins, D., & Dutta, S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Mass General Brigham (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Dutta, Sayon
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
81
Issue
6
Pages
738-748
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4317780979
Cited by
10
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS027170)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
emergency department, hospital bed planning, prediction model validation, random forest, lead time
MeSH terms
Adult, Emergency Service, Hospital, Hospitalization, Humans, Inpatients, Patient Admission, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies

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