Machine Learning Approach to Identifying Wrong-Site Surgeries Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Dataset: Development and Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Wrong-site surgery (WSS) is a critical but preventable medical error, often resulting in severe patient harm and substantial financial costs. While protocols exist to reduce wrong-site surgery, underreporting and inconsistent documentation continue to contribute to its persistence. Machine learning (ML) models, which have shown success in detecting medication errors, may offer a solution by identifying unusual procedure-diagnosis combinations. This study investigated whether an ML approach can effectively adapt to detect surgical errors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the transferability and effectiveness of an ML-based model for detecting inconsistencies within surgical documentation, particularly focusing on laterality discrepancies. METHODS: We used claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Limited Data Set (CMS-LDS) from 2017 to 2020, focusing on surgical procedures with documented laterality. We developed an adapted Association Outlier Pattern (AOP) ML model to identify uncommon procedure-diagnosis combinations, specifically targeting discrepancies in laterality. The model was trained on data from 2017 to 2019 and tested on 2020 orthopedic procedures, using ICD-10-PCS (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System) codes to distinguish body part and laterality. Test cases were classified based on alignment between procedural and diagnostic laterality, with 2 key subgroups (right-left and left-right mismatches) identified for evaluation. Model performance was assessed by comparing precision-recall curves and accuracy against rule-based methods. RESULTS: The findings here included 346,382 claims, of which 2170 claims demonstrated with significant laterality discrepancies between procedures and diagnoses. Among patients with left-side procedures and right-side diagnoses (603/1106), 54.5% were confirmed as errors after clinical review. For right-side procedures with left-side diagnoses (541/1064), 50.8% were classified as errors. The AOP model identified 697 and 655 potentially unusual combinations in the left-right and right-left subgroups, respectively, with over 80% of these cases confirmed as errors following clinical review. Most confirmed errors involved discrepancies in laterality for the same body part, while nonerror cases typically involved general diagnoses without specified laterality. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation showed that the AOP model effectively detects inconsistencies between surgical procedures and diagnoses using CMS-LDS data. The AOP model outperformed traditional rule-based methods, offering higher accuracy in identifying errors. Moreover, the model's transferability from medication-disease associations to procedure-diagnosis verification highlights its broad applicability. By improving the precision of identifying laterality discrepancies, the AOP model can reduce surgical errors, particularly in orthopedic care. These findings suggest that the model enhances patient safety and has the potential to improve clinical decision-making and outcomes.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».