» Articles » PMID: 33902012

Technical Considerations for Evaluating Clinical Prediction Indices: a Case Study for Predicting Code Blue Events with MEWS

Overview
Journal Physiol Meas
Date 2021 Apr 26
PMID 33902012
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There have been many efforts to develop tools predictive of health deterioration in hospitalized patients, but comprehensive evaluation of their predictive ability is often lacking to guide implementation in clinical practice. In this work, we propose new techniques and metrics for evaluating the performance of predictive alert algorithms and illustrate the advantage of capturing the timeliness and the clinical burden of alerts through the example of the modified early warning score (MEWS) applied to the prediction of in-hospital code blue events.. Different implementations of MEWS were calculated from available physiological parameter measurements collected from the electronic health records of ICU adult patients. The performance of MEWS was evaluated using conventional and a set of non-conventional metrics and approaches that take into account the timeliness and practicality of alarms as well as the false alarm burden.. MEWS calculated using the worst-case measurement (i.e. values scoring 3 points in the MEWS definition) over 2 h intervals significantly reduced the false alarm rate by over 50% (from 0.19/h to 0.08/h) while maintaining similar sensitivity levels as MEWS calculated from raw measurements (∼80%). By considering a prediction horizon of 12 h preceding a code blue event, a significant improvement in the specificity (∼60%), the precision (∼155%), and the work-up to detection ratio (∼50%) could be achieved, at the cost of a relatively marginal decrease in sensitivity (∼10%).. Performance aspects pertaining to the timeliness and burden of alarms can aid in understanding the potential utility of a predictive alarm algorithm in clinical settings.

Citing Articles

Early detection of deteriorating patients in general wards through continuous contactless vital signs monitoring.

Yadav A, Dandu H, Parchani G, Chokalingam K, Kadambi P, Mishra R Front Med Technol. 2024; 6:1436034.

PMID: 39328308 PMC: 11425790. DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2024.1436034.

References
1.
Cooksley T, Kitlowski E, Haji-Michael P . Effectiveness of Modified Early Warning Score in predicting outcomes in oncology patients. QJM. 2012; 105(11):1083-8. DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcs138. View

2.
Damen J, Hooft L, Schuit E, Debray T, Collins G, Tzoulaki I . Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review. BMJ. 2016; 353:i2416. PMC: 4868251. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i2416. View

3.
Bai Y, Do D, Harris P, Schindler D, Boyle N, Drew B . Integrating monitor alarms with laboratory test results to enhance patient deterioration prediction. J Biomed Inform. 2014; 53:81-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.09.006. View

4.
Kramer A, Sebat F, Lissauer M . A review of early warning systems for prompt detection of patients at risk for clinical decline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019; 87(1S Suppl 1):S67-S73. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002197. View

5.
Lee L, Yeung K, Lo W, Lau Y, Tang S, Chan J . Evaluation of a simplified therapeutic intervention scoring system (TISS-28) and the modified early warning score (MEWS) in predicting physiological deterioration during inter-facility transport. Resuscitation. 2007; 76(1):47-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.07.005. View