Cited by 315Healthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringMachine Learning in HealthcareSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Identification of Adults at Risk for In-Hospital Clinical Deterioration

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized adults whose condition deteriorates while they are in wards (outside the intensive care unit [ICU]) have considerable morbidity and mortality. Early identification of patients at risk for clinical deterioration has relied on manually calculated scores. Outcomes after an automated detection of impending clinical deterioration have not been widely reported. METHODS: On the basis of a validated model that uses information from electronic medical records to identify hospitalized patients at high risk for clinical deterioration (which permits automated, real-time risk-score calculation), we developed an intervention program involving remote monitoring by nurses who reviewed records of patients who had been identified as being at high risk; results of this monitoring were then communicated to rapid-response teams at hospitals. We compared outcomes (including the primary outcome, mortality within 30 days after an alert) among hospitalized patients (excluding those in the ICU) whose condition reached the alert threshold at hospitals where the system was operational (intervention sites, where alerts led to a clinical response) with outcomes among patients at hospitals where the system had not yet been deployed (comparison sites, where a patient's condition would have triggered a clinical response after an alert had the system been operational). Multivariate analyses adjusted for demographic characteristics, severity of illness, and burden of coexisting conditions. RESULTS: The program was deployed in a staggered fashion at 19 hospitals between August 1, 2016, and February 28, 2019. We identified 548,838 non-ICU hospitalizations involving 326,816 patients. A total of 43,949 hospitalizations (involving 35,669 patients) involved a patient whose condition reached the alert threshold; 15,487 hospitalizations were included in the intervention cohort, and 28,462 hospitalizations in the comparison cohort. Mortality within 30 days after an alert was lower in the intervention cohort than in the comparison cohort (adjusted relative risk, 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.90; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an automated predictive model to identify high-risk patients for whom interventions by rapid-response teams could be implemented was associated with decreased mortality. (Funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and others.).

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejmsa2001090

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Escobar GJ, Liu V, Kim YS, et al. Early detection of impending deterioration outside the ICU: a difference-in-differences (DiD) study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;93:A7614-A7614. abstract.
  2. Harrell F Jr. Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models logistic regression and survival analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag 2010.
  3. Kalbfleisch JD Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley 2011.
  4. Harrell FE Jr. Semiparametric modeling of health care cost and resource utilization. Presented at the 24th Annual Midwest Biopharmaceutical Statistics Workshop Muncie IN May 21–23 2001.
  5. Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. 3rd ed. Boca Raton FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 315

Metadata

Authors
Escobar, G. J., Liu, V. X., Schuler, A., Lawson, B., Greene, J. D., & Kipnis, P.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2020-11-12
Volume
383
Issue
20
Pages
1951-1960
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3106297998
Cited by
314
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 3
FWCI
33.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Sidney Garfield Memorial Fund
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (2663, 2663.01)
  • The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
  • Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.
  • National Institutes of Health (K23GM112018, R35GM128672)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1R01HS018480-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
clinical deterioration, early warning systems, rapid response teams, remote patient monitoring, 30-day mortality, electronic health records, hospitalized adults
MeSH terms
Alert Fatigue, Health Personnel, Laboratory Critical Values, Clinical Deterioration, Adult, Aged, Automation, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Patient Readmission, Telemetry, Multivariate Analysis, Hospital Mortality, Risk Assessment, 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