Cited by 18Healthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringMachine Learning in HealthcareSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Real-Time Machine Learning Alerts to Prevent Escalation of Care: A Nonrandomized Clustered Pragmatic Clinical Trial*

Levin, Matthew A., Kia, Arash, Timsina, Prem, Cheng, Fu-yuan, Nguyen, Kim-Anh-Nhi, Kohli-Seth, Roopa, Lin, Hung-Mo, Ouyang, Yuxia +2 more·2024·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Machine learning algorithms can outperform older methods in predicting clinical deterioration, but rigorous prospective data on their real-world efficacy are limited. We hypothesized that real-time machine learning generated alerts sent directly to front-line providers would reduce escalations. DESIGN: Single-center prospective pragmatic nonrandomized clustered clinical trial. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to four medical-surgical units. Assignment to intervention or control arms was determined by initial unit admission. INTERVENTIONS: Real-time alerts stratified according to predicted likelihood of deterioration sent either to the primary team or directly to the rapid response team (RRT). Clinical care and interventions were at the providers’ discretion. For the control units, alerts were generated but not sent, and standard RRT activation criteria were used. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the rate of escalation per 1000 patient bed days. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of orders for fluids, medications, and diagnostic tests, and combined in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Propensity score modeling with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) was used to account for differences between groups. Data from 2740 patients enrolled between July 2019 and March 2020 were analyzed (1488 intervention, 1252 control). Average age was 66.3 years and 1428 participants (52%) were female. The rate of escalation was 12.3 vs. 11.3 per 1000 patient bed days (difference, 1.0; 95% CI, –2.8 to 4.7) and IPTW adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.43 (95% CI, 1.16–1.78; p < 0.001). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive cardiovascular medication orders (16.1% vs. 11.3%; 4.7%; 95% CI, 2.1–7.4%) and IPTW adjusted relative risk (RR) (1.74; 95% CI, 1.39–2.18; p < 0.001). Combined in-hospital and 30-day-mortality was lower in the intervention group (7% vs. 9.3%; –2.4%; 95% CI, –4.5% to –0.2%) and IPTW adjusted RR (0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time machine learning alerts do not reduce the rate of escalation but may reduce mortality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000006243

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

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?

  • The CONCERN intervention is distinct from other multifactorial machine learning clinical decision support implementations in its modeling approach, integration, and evaluation.

    “While there are other existing multifactorial machine learning clinical decision support implementations that share similarities to ours27–29, the CONCERN intervention is distinct in its modeling approach by using metadata of nursing documentation as early predictors of patient deterioration in acute and intensive care settings, being fully integrated as a real-time EWS into the EHR and undergoing”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levin, M. A., Kia, A., Timsina, P., Cheng, F.-Y., Nguyen, K.-A.-N., Kohli-Seth, R., Lin, H.-M., Ouyang, Y., Freeman, R., & Reich, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2024-02-21
Volume
52
Issue
7
Pages
1007-1020
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392004540
Cited by
18
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
clinical deterioration prediction, rapid response team activation, treatment escalation, real-time clinical decision support, in-hospital mortality, medical-surgical inpatients, electronic health records, hospital quality improvement, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Clinical Deterioration, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Hospital Mortality, Hospital Rapid Response Team

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