Accuracy of using automated methods for detecting adverse events from electronic health record data: a research protocol

Implementation Science

Alan J Forster²  David L Buckeridge¹  Christian M Rochefort¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology, Biostatics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Purvis Hall, 1020 Pine Avenue West, Montreal H3A 1A2, QC, Canada;The Ottawa Hospital, 725 Parkdale Ave, Ottawa K1Y 4E9, ON, Canada

关键词: Data warehouse;    Patient safety;    Natural language processing;    Automated detection;    Acute care hospital;    Electronic health record;    Adverse events;   

Others  :  1139397
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0197-6

 received in 2014-11-30, accepted in 2014-12-18,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Adverse events are associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost in hospitalized patients. Measuring adverse events is necessary for quality improvement, but current detection methods are inaccurate, untimely and expensive. The advent of electronic health records and the development of automated methods for encoding and classifying electronic narrative data, such as natural language processing, offer an opportunity to identify potentially better methods. The objective of this study is to determine the accuracy of using automated methods for detecting three highly prevalent adverse events: a) hospital-acquired pneumonia, b) catheter-associated bloodstream infections, and c) in-hospital falls.

Methods/design

This validation study will be conducted at two large Canadian academic health centres: the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) and The Ottawa Hospital (TOH). The study population consists of all medical, surgical and intensive care unit patients admitted to these centres between 2008 and 2014. An automated detection algorithm will be developed and validated for each of the three adverse events using electronic data extracted from multiple clinical databases. A random sample of MUHC patients will be used to develop the automated detection algorithms (cohort 1, development set). The accuracy of these algorithms will be assessed using chart review as the reference standard. Then, receiver operating characteristic curves will be used to identify optimal cut points for each of the data sources. Multivariate logistic regression and the areas under curve (AUC) will be used to identify the optimal combination of data sources that maximize the accuracy of adverse event detection. The most accurate algorithms will then be validated on a second random sample of MUHC patients (cohort 1, validation set), and accuracy will be measured using chart review as the reference standard. The most accurate algorithms validated at the MUHC will then be applied to TOH data (cohort 2), and their accuracy will be assessed using a reference standard assessment of the medical chart.

Discussion

There is a need for more accurate, timely and efficient measures of adverse events in acute care hospitals. This is a critical requirement for evaluating the effectiveness of preventive interventions and for tracking progress in patient safety through time.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Rochefort et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS: To Err is Human. Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine, National Acadey Press, Washington, D.C; 2000.
• [2]Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, et al.: Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991, 324(6):370-6.
• [3]Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, et al.: The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991, 324(6):377-84.
• [4]Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, Orav EJ, Zeena T, Williams EJ, et al.: Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000, 38(3):261-71.
• [5]Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Newhouse JP, Zbar BI, Howard KM, Williams EJ, et al.: Costs of medical injuries in Utah and Colorado. Inquiry 1999, 36(3):255-64.
• [6]Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, et al.: The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004, 170(11):1678-86.
• [7]Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J. 2002;115(1167):U271.
• [8]Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals II: preventability and clinical context. N Z Med J. 2003;116(1183):U624.
• [9]Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD: The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995, 163(9):458-71.
• [10]The Research Priority Setting Working Group: Global Priorities for Research in Patient Safety. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2008.
• [11]Aspden P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, Erickson SM: Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; 2004.
• [12]Govindan M, Van Citters AD, Nelson EC, Kelly-Cummings J, Suresh G. Automated detection of harm in healthcare with information technology: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):e11.
• [13]Murff HJ, Patel VL, Hripcsak G, Bates DW: Detecting adverse events for patient safety research: a review of current methodologies. J Biomed Inform 2003, 36(1–2):131-43.
• [14]Klompas M, Yokoe DS: Automated surveillance of health care-associated infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 48(9):1268-75.
• [15]Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, Stetson PD, Pizziferri L, Hripcsak G: Detecting adverse events using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003, 10(2):115-28.
• [16]Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, Federico F, Frankel T, Kimmel N, et al.: 'Global trigger tool' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011, 30(4):581-9.
• [17]Kaafarani HM, Borzecki AM, Itani KM, Loveland S, Mull HJ, Hickson K, et al.: Validity of selected patient safety indicators: opportunities and concerns. J Am Coll Surg 2011, 212(6):924-34.
• [18]Goto M, Ohl ME, Schweizer ML, Perencevich EN: Accuracy of administrative code data for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014, 58(5):688-96.
• [19]Romano PS, Mull HJ, Rivard PE, Zhao S, Henderson WG, Loveland S, et al.: Validity of selected AHRQ patient safety indicators based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Health Serv Res 2009, 44(1):182-204.
• [20]Houchens RL, Elixhauser A, Romano PS: How often are potential patient safety events present on admission? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008, 34(3):154-63.
• [21]Bahl V, Thompson MA, Kau TY, Hu HM, Campbell DA Jr: Do the AHRQ patient safety indicators flag conditions that are present at the time of hospital admission? Med Care 2008, 46(5):516-22.
• [22]Murff HJ, Forster AJ, Peterson JF, Fiskio JM, Heiman HL, Bates DW: Electronically screening discharge summaries for adverse medical events. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003, 10(4):339-50.
• [23]Forster AJ, Andrade J, van Walraven C: Validation of a discharge summary term search method to detect adverse events. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005, 12(2):200-6.
• [24]Allen J: Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Redwood City, CA; 1995.
• [25]Nadkarni PM, Ohno-Machado L, Chapman WW: Natural language processing: an introduction. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011, 18(5):544-51.
• [26]Chapman WW, Wagner MM, Moore AW, Aryel RM: Natural Language Processing for Biosurveillance. In Handbook of Biosurveillance. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA; 2006:255-71.
• [27]Mitchell TM: Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA; 1997.
• [28]Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J: The Elements of Statistical Learning. Data mining, Inference, and Prediction. Secondth edition. Springer, New York, NY; 2009.
• [29]Murff HJ, FitzHenry F, Matheny ME, Gentry N, Kotter KL, Crimin K, et al.: Automated identification of postoperative complications within an electronic medical record using natural language processing. JAMA 2011, 306(8):848-55.
• [30]FitzHenry F, Murff HJ, Matheny ME, Gentry N, Fielstein EM, Brown SH, et al.: Exploring the frontier of electronic health record surveillance: the case of postoperative complications. Med Care 2013, 51(6):509-16.
• [31]Rochefort CM, Verma AD, Eguale T, Lee TC, Buckeridge DL: A novel method of adverse event detection can accurately identify venous thromboembolism (VTE) from narrative electronic health record data. JAMIA 2014. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002768.
• [32]McGill University Health Centre (MUHC): MUHC at a glance [http://muhc.ca/homepage/page/muhc-glance]
• [33]The Ottawa Hospital: the Ottawa Hospital in statistics [http://www.ottawahospital.ca/wps/portal/Base/TheHospital/AboutOurHospital/Statistics]
• [34]Chastre J, Fagon JY: Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002, 165(7):867-903.
• [35]American Thoracic Society and Infection Disease Society of America: Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005, 171(4):388-416.
• [36]Kieninger AN, Lipsett PA: Hospital-acquired pneumonia: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Surg Clin North Am 2009, 89(2):439-461. ix.
• [37]Joseph NM, Sistla S, Dutta TK, Badhe AS, Parija SC: Ventilator-associated pneumonia: a review. Eur J Intern Med 2010, 21(5):360-8.
• [38]Hockenhull JC, Dwan K, Boland A, Smith G, Bagust A, Dundar Y, et al.: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing bloodstream infections: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008, 12(12):ii-xi.
• [39]Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ: The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006, 81(9):1159-71.
• [40]Salgado RI, Lord SR, Ehrlich F, Janji N, Rahman A: Predictors of falling in elderly hospital patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2004, 38(3):213-9.
• [41]Patel PJ, Leeper KV Jr, McGowan JE Jr: Epidemiology and microbiology of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2002, 23(5):415-25.
• [42]O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, et al.: Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control 2011, 39(4 Suppl 1):S1-S34.
• [43]Rotstein C, Evans G, Born A, Grossman R, Light RB, Magder S, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2008, 19(1):19-53.
• [44]Eggimann P, Pittet D: Overview of catheter-related infections with special emphasis on prevention based on educational programs. Clin Microbiol Infect 2002, 8(5):295-309.
• [45]Oliver D, Daly F, Martin FC, McMurdo ME: Risk factors and risk assessment tools for falls in hospital in-patients: a systematic review. Age Ageing 2004, 33(2):122-30.
• [46]Hill AM, Hoffmann T, Hill K, Oliver D, Beer C, McPhail S, et al.: Measuring falls events in acute hospitals-a comparison of three reporting methods to identify missing data in the hospital reporting system. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010, 58(7):1347-52.
• [47]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): CDC/NHSN surveillance definitions for specific types of infections [http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/17pscnosinfdef_current.pdf]
• [48]World Health Organization (WHO): WHO Global report on fall prevention in older age [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs344/en/].
• [49]Hirschhorn LR, Currier JS, Platt R: Electronic surveillance of antibiotic exposure and coded discharge diagnoses as indicators of postoperative infection and other quality assurance measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993, 14(1):21-8.
• [50]Trick WE, Chapman WW, Wisniewski MF, Peterson BJ, Solomon SL, Weinstein RA: Electronic interpretation of chest radiograph reports to detect central venous catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003, 24(12):950-4.
• [51]Emori TG, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Sartor C, Stroud LA, Gaunt EE, et al.: Accuracy of reporting nosocomial infections in intensive-care-unit patients to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System: a pilot study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998, 19(5):308-16.
• [52]Tejerina E, Esteban A, Fernandez-Segoviano P, Frutos-Vivar F, Aramburu J, Ballesteros D, et al.: Accuracy of clinical definitions of ventilator-associated pneumonia: comparison with autopsy findings. J Crit Care 2010, 25(1):62-8.
• [53]Lin MY, Hota B, Khan YM, Woeltje KF, Borlawsky TB, Doherty JA, et al.: Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010, 304(18):2035-41.
• [54]Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983, 148(3):839-43.
• [55]Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40(5):373-83.
• [56]Chuang JH, Friedman C, Hripcsak G: A comparison of the Charlson comorbidities derived from medical language processing and administrative data. Proc AMIA Symp 2002, 2002:160-4.
• [57]Pepe M: The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Test Classification and Prediction. Oxford Press, New York; 2004.
• [58]Irwig L, Glasziou PP, Berry G, Chock C, Mock P, Simpson JM: Efficient study designs to assess the accuracy of screening tests. Am J Epidemiol 1994, 140(8):759-69.
• [59]Dowell SF: Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases. Emerg Infect Dis 2001, 7(3):369-74.
• [60]Dowell SF, Ho MS: Seasonality of infectious diseases and severe acute respiratory syndrome-what we don’t know can hurt us. Lancet Infect Dis 2004, 4(11):704-8.
• [61]Dublin S, Baldwin E, Walker RL, Christensen LM, Haug PJ, Jackson ML, et al.: Natural Language Processing to identify pneumonia from radiology reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013, 22(8):834-1.
• [62]Elkin PL, Froehling D, Wahner-Roedler D, Trusko B, Welsh G, Ma H, et al.: NLP-based identification of pneumonia cases from free-text radiological reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008, 6:172-6.
• [63]Trick WE, Zagorski BM, Tokars JI, Vernon MO, Welbel SF, Wisniewski MF, et al.: Computer algorithms to detect bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2004, 10(9):1612-20.
• [64]Bellini C, Petignat C, Francioli P, Wenger A, Bille J, Klopotov A, et al.: Comparison of automated strategies for surveillance of nosocomial bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007, 28(9):1030-5.
• [65]Hota B, Lin M, Doherty JA, Borlawsky T, Woeltje K, Stevenson K, et al.: Formulation of a model for automating infection surveillance: algorithmic detection of central-line associated bloodstream infection. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010, 17(1):42-8.
• [66]Toyabe S. Detecting inpatient falls by using natural language processing of electronic medical records. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:448.