↓ Skip to main content

Prospective stratification of patients at risk for emergency department revisit: resource utilization and population management strategy implications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Prospective stratification of patients at risk for emergency department revisit: resource utilization and population management strategy implications
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12873-016-0074-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bo Jin, Yifan Zhao, Shiying Hao, Andrew Young Shin, Yue Wang, Chunqing Zhu, Zhongkai Hu, Changlin Fu, Jun Ji, Yong Wang, Yingzhen Zhao, Yunliang Jiang, Dorothy Dai, Devore S. Culver, Shaun T. Alfreds, Todd Rogow, Frank Stearns, Karl G. Sylvester, Eric Widen, Xuefeng B. Ling

Abstract

Estimating patient risk of future emergency department (ED) revisits can guide the allocation of resources, e.g. local primary care and/or specialty, to better manage ED high utilization patient populations and thereby improve patient life qualities. We set to develop and validate a method to estimate patient ED revisit risk in the subsequent 6 months from an ED discharge date. An ensemble decision-tree-based model with Electronic Medical Record (EMR) encounter data from HealthInfoNet (HIN), Maine's Health Information Exchange (HIE), was developed and validated, assessing patient risk for a subsequent 6 month return ED visit based on the ED encounter-associated demographic and EMR clinical history data. A retrospective cohort of 293,461 ED encounters that occurred between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012, was assembled with the associated patients' 1-year clinical histories before the ED discharge date, for model training and calibration purposes. To validate, a prospective cohort of 193,886 ED encounters that occurred between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013 was constructed. Statistical learning that was utilized to construct the prediction model identified 152 variables that included the following data domains: demographics groups (12), different encounter history (104), care facilities (12), primary and secondary diagnoses (10), primary and secondary procedures (2), chronic disease condition (1), laboratory test results (2), and outpatient prescription medications (9). The c-statistics for the retrospective and prospective cohorts were 0.742 and 0.730 respectively. Total medical expense and ED utilization by risk score 6 months after the discharge were analyzed. Cluster analysis identified discrete subpopulations of high-risk patients with distinctive resource utilization patterns, suggesting the need for diversified care management strategies. Integration of our method into the HIN secure statewide data system in real time prospectively validated its performance. It promises to provide increased opportunity for high ED utilization identification, and optimized resource and population management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 105 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Student > Master 17 16%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Computer Science 8 7%
Engineering 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,437,241
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#568
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,378
of 397,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 397,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.