Predicting pressure injury using nursing assessment phenotypes and machine learning methods
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Pressure injuries are common and serious complications for hospitalized patients. The pressure injury rate is an important patient safety metric and an indicator of the quality of nursing care. Timely and accurate prediction of pressure injury risk can significantly facilitate early prevention and treatment and avoid adverse outcomes. While many pressure injury risk assessment tools exist, most were developed before there was access to large clinical datasets and advanced statistical methods, limiting their accuracy. In this paper, we describe the development of machine learning-based predictive models, using phenotypes derived from nurse-entered direct patient assessment data. Methods: We utilized rich electronic health record data, including full assessment records entered by nurses, from 5 different hospitals affiliated with a large integrated healthcare organization to develop machine learning-based prediction models for pressure injury. Five-fold cross-validation was conducted to evaluate model performance. Results: Two pressure injury phenotypes were defined for model development: nonhospital acquired pressure injury (N = 4398) and hospital acquired pressure injury (N = 1767), representing 2 distinct clinical scenarios. A total of 28 clinical features were extracted and multiple machine learning predictive models were developed for both pressure injury phenotypes. The random forest model performed best and achieved an AUC of 0.92 and 0.94 in 2 test sets, respectively. The Glasgow coma scale, a nurse-entered level of consciousness measurement, was the most important feature for both groups. Conclusions: This model accurately predicts pressure injury development and, if validated externally, may be helpful in widespread pressure injury prevention.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Song et al. random forest-type predictive algorithm for pressure ulcers showed AUCs of 0.92 and 0.94 in two test sets.
“Song et al. (71) employed a random forest-type predictive algorithm applied to a case study of hospital-acquired and non-hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, showing AUCs of 0.92 and 0.94 in two test sets.”
From Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming patient safety with intelligent systems—A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
Cites
Stern, A., Mitsakakis, N., Paulden, M., Alibhai, S., Wong, J., Tomlinson, G., Brooker, A.-S., Krahn, M., & Zwarenstein, M. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-83 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
De Micco, F., Di Palma, G., Ferorelli, D., De Benedictis, A., Tomassini, L., Tambone, V., Cingolani, M., & Scendoni, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1522554 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Decoding machine learning in nursing research: A scoping review of effective algorithms
Choi, J., Lee, H., & Kim‐Godwin, Y. (2025) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/jnu.13026 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Song, W., Kang, M.-J., Zhang, L., Jung, W., Song, J., Bates, D. W., & Dykes, P. C.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kang, Min-Jeoung
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-02-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 759-765
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC7973453
- OpenAlex
- W3128640632
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 12.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Nursing Research (#1R01NR016941-01)
- Communicating Narrative Concerns Entered
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Keywords
- pressure ulcers, nursing assessment, phenotypes, machine learning, random forest, hospital-acquired pressure injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, level of consciousness, electronic health records, pressure ulcer prevention, patient safety
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Pressure Ulcer, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Nursing Research, Logistic Models, Databases, Factual, 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