Development and Validation of the Hospital Medicine Safety Sepsis Initiative Mortality Model.

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3769
Hallie C Prescott, Megan Heath, Elizabeth S Munroe, John Blamoun, Paul Bozyk, Rachel K Hechtman, Jennifer K Horowitz, Namita Jayaprakash, Keith E Kocher, Mariam Younas, Stephanie P Taylor, Patricia J Posa, Elizabeth McLaughlin, Scott A Flanders
{"title":"Development and Validation of the Hospital Medicine Safety Sepsis Initiative Mortality Model.","authors":"Hallie C Prescott, Megan Heath, Elizabeth S Munroe, John Blamoun, Paul Bozyk, Rachel K Hechtman, Jennifer K Horowitz, Namita Jayaprakash, Keith E Kocher, Mariam Younas, Stephanie P Taylor, Patricia J Posa, Elizabeth McLaughlin, Scott A Flanders","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When comparing outcomes after sepsis, it is essential to account for patient case mix to make fair comparisons. We developed a model to assess risk-adjusted 30-day mortality in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety sepsis initiative (HMS-Sepsis).</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Can HMS-Sepsis registry data adequately predict risk of 30-day mortality? Do performance assessments using adjusted vs unadjusted data differ?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort of community-onset sepsis hospitalizations in the HMS-Sepsis registry (April 2022-September 2023), with split derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts. We fit a risk-adjustment model (HMS-Sepsis mortality model) incorporating acute physiologic, demographic, and baseline health data and assessed model performance using concordance (C) statistics, Brier scores, and comparisons of predicted vs observed mortality by deciles of risk. We compared hospital performance (first quintile, middle quintiles, fifth quintile) using observed vs adjusted mortality to understand the extent to which risk adjustment impacted hospital performance assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 17,514 hospitalizations from 66 hospitals during the study period, 12,260 hospitalizations (70%) were used for model derivation and 5,254 hospitalizations (30%) were used for model validation. Thirty-day mortality for the total cohort was 19.4%. The final model included 13 physiologic variables, two physiologic interactions, and 16 demographic and chronic health variables. The most significant variables were age, metastatic solid tumor, temperature, altered mental status, and platelet count. The model C statistic was 0.82 for the derivation cohort, 0.81 for the validation cohort, and ≥ 0.78 for all subgroups assessed. Overall calibration error was 0.0%, and mean calibration error across deciles of risk was 1.5%. Standardized mortality ratios yielded different assessments than observed mortality for 33.9% of hospitals.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The HMS-Sepsis mortality model showed strong discrimination and adequate calibration and reclassified one-third of hospitals to a different performance category from unadjusted mortality. Based on its strong performance, the HMS-Sepsis mortality model may aid in fair hospital benchmarking, assessment of temporal changes, and observational causal inference analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":"1035-1045"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3769","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: When comparing outcomes after sepsis, it is essential to account for patient case mix to make fair comparisons. We developed a model to assess risk-adjusted 30-day mortality in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety sepsis initiative (HMS-Sepsis).

Research question: Can HMS-Sepsis registry data adequately predict risk of 30-day mortality? Do performance assessments using adjusted vs unadjusted data differ?

Study design and methods: Retrospective cohort of community-onset sepsis hospitalizations in the HMS-Sepsis registry (April 2022-September 2023), with split derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts. We fit a risk-adjustment model (HMS-Sepsis mortality model) incorporating acute physiologic, demographic, and baseline health data and assessed model performance using concordance (C) statistics, Brier scores, and comparisons of predicted vs observed mortality by deciles of risk. We compared hospital performance (first quintile, middle quintiles, fifth quintile) using observed vs adjusted mortality to understand the extent to which risk adjustment impacted hospital performance assessment.

Results: Among 17,514 hospitalizations from 66 hospitals during the study period, 12,260 hospitalizations (70%) were used for model derivation and 5,254 hospitalizations (30%) were used for model validation. Thirty-day mortality for the total cohort was 19.4%. The final model included 13 physiologic variables, two physiologic interactions, and 16 demographic and chronic health variables. The most significant variables were age, metastatic solid tumor, temperature, altered mental status, and platelet count. The model C statistic was 0.82 for the derivation cohort, 0.81 for the validation cohort, and ≥ 0.78 for all subgroups assessed. Overall calibration error was 0.0%, and mean calibration error across deciles of risk was 1.5%. Standardized mortality ratios yielded different assessments than observed mortality for 33.9% of hospitals.

Interpretation: The HMS-Sepsis mortality model showed strong discrimination and adequate calibration and reclassified one-third of hospitals to a different performance category from unadjusted mortality. Based on its strong performance, the HMS-Sepsis mortality model may aid in fair hospital benchmarking, assessment of temporal changes, and observational causal inference analysis.

开发和验证 HMS-Sepsis 死亡率模型。
背景:在比较败血症的治疗效果时,必须考虑患者的病例组合,以便进行公平的比较。我们在密歇根州医院医疗安全脓毒症倡议(HMS-Sepsis)中建立了一个模型来评估风险调整后的 30 天死亡率:问题:HMS-Sepsis 登记数据能否充分预测 30 天死亡率风险?研究设计与方法:HMS-Sepsis登记(4/2022-9/2023)中社区发生的败血症住院病例的回顾性队列,分为衍生队列(70%)和验证队列(30%)。我们结合急性生理学、人口统计学和基线健康数据拟合了一个风险调整模型(HMS-Sepsis 死亡率模型),并使用 c 统计量、布赖尔评分以及按风险十分位数进行的预测死亡率与观察死亡率比较来评估模型的性能。我们使用观察死亡率与调整死亡率比较了医院的绩效(第一五分位数、中间五分位数、第五五分位数),以了解风险调整对医院绩效评估的影响程度:研究期间,66 家医院的 17,514 例住院病例中,12,260 例(70%)用于模型推导,5,254 例(30%)用于模型验证。整个组群的 30 天死亡率为 19.4%。最终模型包括 13 个生理变量、两个生理交互变量以及 16 个人口统计学和慢性健康变量。最重要的变量是年龄、转移性实体瘤、体温、精神状态改变和血小板计数。衍生队列的模型 c 统计量为 0.82,验证队列为 0.81,所有评估的亚组都≥0.78。总体校准误差为 0.0%,各十分位数风险的平均校准误差为 1.5%。33.9%的医院的标准化死亡率评估结果与观察死亡率不同:结论:HMS-Sepsis 死亡率模型具有很强的辨别能力和足够的校准能力,可将三分之一的医院重新归类为与未调整死亡率不同的绩效类别。基于其强大的性能,HMS-Sepsis 死亡率模型可以帮助进行公平的医院基准评估、时间变化评估和观察性因果推理分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信