36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk Prediction Models to Predict Emergency Hospital Admission in Community-dwelling Adults : A Systematic Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Risk prediction models have been developed to identify those at increased risk for emergency admissions, which could facilitate targeted interventions in primary care to prevent these events.

          Objective:

          Systematic review of validated risk prediction models for predicting emergency hospital admissions in community-dwelling adults.

          Methods:

          A systematic literature review and narrative analysis was conducted. Inclusion criteria were as follows; Population: community-dwelling adults (aged 18 years and above); Risk: risk prediction models, not contingent on an index hospital admission, with a derivation and ≥1 validation cohort; Primary outcome: emergency hospital admission (defined as unplanned overnight stay in hospital); Study design: retrospective or prospective cohort studies.

          Results:

          Of 18,983 records reviewed, 27 unique risk prediction models met the inclusion criteria. Eleven were developed in the United States, 11 in the United Kingdom, 3 in Italy, 1 in Spain, and 1 in Canada. Nine models were derived using self-report data, and the remainder (n=18) used routine administrative or clinical record data. Total study sample sizes ranged from 96 to 4.7 million participants. Predictor variables most frequently included in models were: (1) named medical diagnoses (n=23); (2) age (n=23); (3) prior emergency admission (n=22); and (4) sex (n=18). Eleven models included nonmedical factors, such as functional status and social supports. Regarding predictive accuracy, models developed using administrative or clinical record data tended to perform better than those developed using self-report data ( c statistics 0.63–0.83 vs. 0.61–0.74, respectively). Six models reported c statistics of >0.8, indicating good performance. All 6 included variables for prior health care utilization, multimorbidity or polypharmacy, and named medical diagnoses or prescribed medications. Three predicted admissions regarded as being ambulatory care sensitive.

          Conclusions:

          This study suggests that risk models developed using administrative or clinical record data tend to perform better. In applying a risk prediction model to a new population, careful consideration needs to be given to the purpose of its use and local factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

          Clinical experience provides clinicians with an intuitive sense of which findings on history, physical examination, and investigation are critical in making an accurate diagnosis, or an accurate assessment of a patient's fate. A clinical decision rule (CDR) is a clinical tool that quantifies the individual contributions that various components of the history, physical examination, and basic laboratory results make toward the diagnosis, prognosis, or likely response to treatment in a patient. Clinical decision rules attempt to formally test, simplify, and increase the accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic and prognostic assessments. Existing CDRs guide clinicians, establish pretest probability, provide screening tests for common problems, and estimate risk. Three steps are involved in the development and testing of a CDR: creation of the rule, testing or validating the rule, and assessing the impact of the rule on clinical behavior. Clinicians evaluating CDRs for possible clinical use should assess the following components: the method of derivation; the validation of the CDR to ensure that its repeated use leads to the same results; and its predictive power. We consider CDRs that have been validated in a new clinical setting to be level 1 CDRs and most appropriate for implementation. Level 1 CDRs have the potential to inform clinical judgment, to change clinical behavior, and to reduce unnecessary costs, while maintaining quality of care and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2000;284:79-84
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Predicting risk of hospitalization or death among patients receiving primary care in the Veterans Health Administration.

            Statistical models that identify patients at elevated risk of death or hospitalization have focused on population subsets, such as those with a specific clinical condition or hospitalized patients. Most models have limitations for clinical use. Our objective was to develop models that identified high-risk primary care patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening elders for risk of hospital admission.

              To define a set of screening criteria that identifies elders who are at high risk for repeated hospital admission in the future. Longitudinal cohort study. Logistic regression analysis of data from half of the subjects was used to identify risk factors for repeated hospital admission. The ability of these risk factors to identify elders who are at high risk for repeated hospitalization in the future was then tested using data from the other half of the subjects. United States. A subsample (n = 5876) of a multistage probability sample of all non-institutionalized U.S. civilians who were 70 years or older in 1984. At baseline (1984), elderly subjects were asked about their demographic, socioeconomic, medical, and functional characteristics and about their recent use of health services. Their subsequent hospital admissions and mortality were then monitored through the records of the Medicare program and the National Death Index (1985-88). Among the subjects in the first half of the sample, eight factors emerged as risk factors for repeated admission: older age, male sex, poor self-rated general health, availability of an informal caregiver, having ever had coronary artery disease, and having had, during the previous year, a hospital admission, more than six doctor visits, or diabetes. Based on the presence or absence of these factors in 1984, 7.2% of the subjects in the second half of the sample were estimated to have a high probability of repeated admission (Pra > or = 0.5) during 1985-1988. In comparison with subjects estimated to have a low risk (Pra < 0.5), this high-risk group's actual experiences during 1985-1988 included a higher cumulative incidence of repeated admission (41.8% vs 26.2%, P < 0.0001), a higher cumulative rate of mortality (44.2% vs 19.0%, P < 0.0001), more hospital days per person-year survived (5.2 vs 2.6), and higher hospital charges per person-year survived ($3731 vs $1841). Eight easily ascertained risk factors affect elders' probability of being hospitalized repeatedly within four years. In the future, brief surveys about the presence of these factors could be used to estimate elders' risk of future hospitalization and, thereby, to identify some of those who may derive the greatest benefit from interventions designed to avert the need for hospitalization.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Med Care
                Med Care
                MLR
                Medical Care
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0025-7079
                1537-1948
                August 2014
                16 July 2014
                : 52
                : 8
                : 751-765
                Affiliations
                [* ]HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2
                []School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick
                []Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, St James’s Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
                Author notes
                Reprints: Dr Emma Wallace, MB, BAO, BcH, HRB, Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), 123 St Stephen’s green, Dublin 2, Ireland. E-mail: emmawallace@ 123456rcsi.ie .
                Article
                00012
                10.1097/MLR.0000000000000171
                4219489
                25023919
                ee72c23f-8b93-4632-97fa-de57c4b07644
                Copyright © 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivitives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.

                History
                Categories
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                T
                TRUE

                risk prediction model,emergency hospital admission,community-dwelling adults

                Comments

                Comment on this article