Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record-based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions

17Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data. Design: Retrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018. Setting: One community and two academic hospitals in Maryland. Patients: All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: From the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of "the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit" that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed "billing code sensitivity" and "billing code predictive value." Physician review of electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93), electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30-0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11-0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07-0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.31). Electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3. Conclusions: By accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis.

References Powered by Scopus

The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)

18450Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: Analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care

7111Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence

3674Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Prospective, multi-site study of patient outcomes after implementation of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system for sepsis

130Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Human–machine teaming is key to AI adoption: clinicians’ experiences with a deployed machine learning system

97Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Factors driving provider adoption of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system and its effects on sepsis treatment timing

57Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Henry, K. E., Hager, D. N., Osborn, T. M., Wu, A. W., & Saria, S. (2019). Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record-based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions. Critical Care Explorations, 1(10), E0053. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000053

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 9

53%

Researcher 5

29%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 7

44%

Medicine and Dentistry 5

31%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

13%

Engineering 2

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free