↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy and generalizability of using automated methods for identifying adverse events from electronic health record data: a validation study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy and generalizability of using automated methods for identifying adverse events from electronic health record data: a validation study protocol
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2069-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian M. Rochefort, David L. Buckeridge, Andréanne Tanguay, Alain Biron, Frédérick D’Aragon, Shengrui Wang, Benoit Gallix, Louis Valiquette, Li-Anne Audet, Todd C. Lee, Dev Jayaraman, Bruno Petrucci, Patricia Lefebvre

Abstract

Adverse events (AEs) in acute care hospitals are frequent and associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Measuring AEs is necessary for quality improvement and benchmarking purposes, but current detection methods lack in accuracy, efficiency, and generalizability. The growing availability of electronic health records (EHR) and the development of natural language processing techniques for encoding narrative data offer an opportunity to develop potentially better methods. The purpose of this study is to determine the accuracy and generalizability of using automated methods for detecting three high-incidence and high-impact AEs from EHR data: a) hospital-acquired pneumonia, b) ventilator-associated event and, c) central line-associated bloodstream infection. This validation study will be conducted among medical, surgical and ICU patients admitted between 2013 and 2016 to the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) and the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), which has both French and English sites. A random 60% sample of CHUS patients will be used for model development purposes (cohort 1, development set). Using a random sample of these patients, a reference standard assessment of their medical chart will be performed. Multivariate logistic regression and the area under the curve (AUC) will be employed to iteratively develop and optimize three automated AE detection models (i.e., one per AE of interest) using EHR data from the CHUS. These models will then be validated on a random sample of the remaining 40% of CHUS patients (cohort 1, internal validation set) using chart review to assess accuracy. The most accurate models developed and validated at the CHUS will then be applied to EHR data from a random sample of patients admitted to the MUHC French site (cohort 2) and English site (cohort 3)-a critical requirement given the use of narrative data -, and accuracy will be assessed using chart review. Generalizability will be determined by comparing AUCs from cohorts 2 and 3 to those from cohort 1. This study will likely produce more accurate and efficient measures of AEs. These measures could be used to assess the incidence rates of AEs, evaluate the success of preventive interventions, or benchmark performance across hospitals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 39 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Computer Science 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 42 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,337,934
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,125
of 7,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,855
of 307,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#109
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.