Cargando…

Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions

To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018. SETTING: One community and two academic hospitals i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Henry, Katharine E., Hager, David N., Osborn, Tiffany M., Wu, Albert W., Saria, Suchi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32166234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000053
_version_ 1783504776918466560
author Henry, Katharine E.
Hager, David N.
Osborn, Tiffany M.
Wu, Albert W.
Saria, Suchi
author_facet Henry, Katharine E.
Hager, David N.
Osborn, Tiffany M.
Wu, Albert W.
Saria, Suchi
author_sort Henry, Katharine E.
collection PubMed
description To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018. SETTING: One community and two academic hospitals in Maryland. PATIENTS: All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of “the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit” that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed “billing code sensitivity” and “billing code predictive value.” Physician review of electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88–0.93), electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30–0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11–0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07–0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72–0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26–0.31). Electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3. CONCLUSIONS: By accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7063888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70638882020-03-12 Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions Henry, Katharine E. Hager, David N. Osborn, Tiffany M. Wu, Albert W. Saria, Suchi Crit Care Explor Original Clinical Report To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018. SETTING: One community and two academic hospitals in Maryland. PATIENTS: All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of “the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit” that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed “billing code sensitivity” and “billing code predictive value.” Physician review of electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88–0.93), electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30–0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11–0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07–0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72–0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26–0.31). Electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3. CONCLUSIONS: By accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis. Wolters Kluwer Health 2019-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7063888/ /pubmed/32166234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000053 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Clinical Report
Henry, Katharine E.
Hager, David N.
Osborn, Tiffany M.
Wu, Albert W.
Saria, Suchi
Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions
title Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions
title_full Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions
title_fullStr Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions
title_short Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record–based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions
title_sort comparison of automated sepsis identification methods and electronic health record–based sepsis phenotyping: improving case identification accuracy by accounting for confounding comorbid conditions
topic Original Clinical Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32166234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000053
work_keys_str_mv AT henrykatharinee comparisonofautomatedsepsisidentificationmethodsandelectronichealthrecordbasedsepsisphenotypingimprovingcaseidentificationaccuracybyaccountingforconfoundingcomorbidconditions
AT hagerdavidn comparisonofautomatedsepsisidentificationmethodsandelectronichealthrecordbasedsepsisphenotypingimprovingcaseidentificationaccuracybyaccountingforconfoundingcomorbidconditions
AT osborntiffanym comparisonofautomatedsepsisidentificationmethodsandelectronichealthrecordbasedsepsisphenotypingimprovingcaseidentificationaccuracybyaccountingforconfoundingcomorbidconditions
AT wualbertw comparisonofautomatedsepsisidentificationmethodsandelectronichealthrecordbasedsepsisphenotypingimprovingcaseidentificationaccuracybyaccountingforconfoundingcomorbidconditions
AT sariasuchi comparisonofautomatedsepsisidentificationmethodsandelectronichealthrecordbasedsepsisphenotypingimprovingcaseidentificationaccuracybyaccountingforconfoundingcomorbidconditions