Cited by 67Pressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementMachine Learning in HealthcareNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Predicting pressure injury using nursing assessment phenotypes and machine learning methods

Open access
Song, Wenyu, Kang, Min-Jeoung, Zhang, Linying, Jung, Wonkyung, Song, Jiyoun, Bates, David W, Dykes, Patricia C·2021·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocaa336

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
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
Published
2021-02-01
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
759-765
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
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
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