A clinical prediction model to identify children at risk for revisits with serious illness to the emergency department: A prospective multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND: To develop a clinical prediction model to identify children at risk for revisits with serious illness to the emergency department. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A secondary analysis of a prospective multicentre observational study in five European EDs (the TRIAGE study), including consecutive children aged <16 years who were discharged following their initial ED visit (‘index’ visit), in 2012–2015. Standardised data on patient characteristics, Manchester Triage System urgency classification, vital signs, clinical interventions and procedures were collected. The outcome measure was serious illness defined as hospital admission or PICU admission or death in ED after an unplanned revisit within 7 days of the index visit. Prediction models were developed using multivariable logistic regression using characteristics of the index visit to predict the likelihood of a revisit with a serious illness. The clinical model included day and time of presentation, season, age, gender, presenting problem, triage urgency, and vital signs. An extended model added laboratory investigations, imaging, and intravenous medications. Cross validation between the five sites was performed, and discrimination and calibration were assessed using random effects models. A digital calculator was constructed for clinical implementation. 7,891 children out of 98,561 children had a revisit to the ED (8.0%), of whom 1,026 children (1.0%) returned to the ED with a serious illness. Rates of revisits with serious illness varied between the hospitals (range 0.7–2.2%). The clinical model had a summary Area under the operating curve (AUC) of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65–0.74) and summary calibration slope of 0.83 (95% CI 0.67–0.99). 4,433 children (5%) had a risk of > = 3%, which was useful for ruling in a revisit with serious illness, with positive likelihood ratio 4.41 (95% CI 3.87–5.01) and specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.96). 37,546 (39%) had a risk <0.5%, which was useful for ruling out a revisit with serious illness (negative likelihood ratio 0.30 (95% CI 0.25–0.35), sensitivity 0.88 (95% CI 0.86–0.90)). The extended model had an improved summary AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68–0.75) and summary calibration slope of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71–0.97). As study limitations, variables on ethnicity and social deprivation could not be included, and only return visits to the original hospital and not to those of surrounding hospitals were recorded. CONCLUSION: We developed a prediction model and a digital calculator which can aid physicians identifying those children at highest and lowest risks for developing a serious illness after initial discharge from the ED, allowing for more targeted safety netting advice and follow-up.