A Comprehensive and Improved Definition for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury Classification Based on Electronic Health Records: Comparative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Patients develop pressure injuries (PIs) in the hospital owing to low mobility, exposure to localized pressure, circulatory conditions, and other predisposing factors. Over 2.5 million Americans develop PIs annually. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid considers hospital-acquired PIs (HAPIs) as the most frequent preventable event, and they are the second most common claim in lawsuits. With the growing use of electronic health records (EHRs) in hospitals, an opportunity exists to build machine learning models to identify and predict HAPI rather than relying on occasional manual assessments by human experts. However, accurate computational models rely on high-quality HAPI data labels. Unfortunately, the different data sources within EHRs can provide conflicting information on HAPI occurrence in the same patient. Furthermore, the existing definitions of HAPI disagree with each other, even within the same patient population. The inconsistent criteria make it impossible to benchmark machine learning methods to predict HAPI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was threefold. We aimed to identify discrepancies in HAPI sources within EHRs, to develop a comprehensive definition for HAPI classification using data from all EHR sources, and to illustrate the importance of an improved HAPI definition. METHODS: We assessed the congruence among HAPI occurrences documented in clinical notes, diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and chart events from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. We analyzed the criteria used for the 3 existing HAPI definitions and their adherence to the regulatory guidelines. We proposed the Emory HAPI (EHAPI), which is an improved and more comprehensive HAPI definition. We then evaluated the importance of the labels in training a HAPI classification model using tree-based and sequential neural network classifiers. RESULTS: We illustrate the complexity of defining HAPI, with <13% of hospital stays having at least 3 PI indications documented across 4 data sources. Although chart events were the most common indicator, it was the only PI documentation for >49% of the stays. We demonstrate a lack of congruence across existing HAPI definitions and EHAPI, with only 219 stays having a consensus positive label. Our analysis highlights the importance of our improved HAPI definition, with classifiers trained using our labels outperforming others on a small manually labeled set from nurse annotators and a consensus set in which all definitions agreed on the label. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized HAPI definitions are important for accurately assessing HAPI nursing quality metric and determining HAPI incidence for preventive measures. We demonstrate the complexity of defining an occurrence of HAPI, given the conflicting and incomplete EHR data. Our EHAPI definition has favorable properties, making it a suitable candidate for HAPI classification tasks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».