Using Patient Flow Information to Determine Risk of Hospital Presentation: Protocol for a Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Every day, patients are admitted to the hospital with conditions that could have been effectively managed in the primary care sector. These admissions are expensive and in many cases are possible to avoid if early intervention occurs. General practitioners are in the best position to identify those at risk of imminent hospital presentation and admission; however, it is not always possible for all the factors to be considered. A lack of shared information contributes significantly to the challenge of understanding a patient's full medical history. Some health care systems around the world use algorithms to analyze patient data in order to predict events such as emergency presentation; however, those responsible for the design and use of such systems readily admit that the algorithms can only be used to assess the populations used to design the algorithm in the first place. The United Kingdom health care system has contributed data toward algorithm development, which is possible through the unified health care system in place there. The lack of unified patient records in Australia has made building an algorithm for local use a significant challenge. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to use linked patient records to track patient flow through primary and secondary health care in order to develop a tool that can be applied in real time at the general practice level. This algorithm will allow the generation of reports for general practitioners that indicate the relative risk of patients presenting to an emergency department. METHODS: A previously designed tool was used to deidentify the general practice and hospital records of approximately 100,000 patients. Records were pooled for patients who had attended emergency departments within the Eastern Health Network of hospitals and general practices within the Eastern Health Network catchment. The next phase will involve development of a model using a predictive analytic machine learning algorithm. The model will be developed iteratively, testing the combination of variables that will provide the best predictive model. RESULTS: Records of approximately 97,000 patients who have attended both a general practice and an emergency department have been identified within the database. These records are currently being used to develop the predictive model. CONCLUSIONS: Records from general practice and emergency department visits have been identified and pooled for development of the algorithm. The next phase in the project will see validation and live testing of the algorithm in a practice setting. The algorithm will underpin a clinical decision support tool for general practitioners which will be tested for face validity in this initial study into its efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".