The development of early warning scores or alerting systems for the prediction of adverse events in psychiatric patients: a scoping review.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Valentina Tamayo Velasquez, Justine Chang, Andrea Waddell
{"title":"The development of early warning scores or alerting systems for the prediction of adverse events in psychiatric patients: a scoping review.","authors":"Valentina Tamayo Velasquez, Justine Chang, Andrea Waddell","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06052-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse events in psychiatric settings present ongoing challenges for both patients and staff. Despite advances in psychiatric interventions and treatments, research on early warning scores and tools to predict patient deterioration is limited. This review provides a summary of the few tools that have been developed in a psychiatric setting, comparing machine learning (ML) and nonmachine learning/traditional methodologies. The outcomes of interest include the selected key variables that contribute to adverse events and the performance and validation measures of the predictive models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three databases, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase, were searched between February 2023 and April 2023 to identify all relevant studies that included a combination of (and were not limited to) the following search terms: \"Early warning,\" \"Alerting tool,\" and \"Psychiatry\". Peer-reviewed primary research publications were included without imposing any date restrictions. A total of 1,193 studies were screened. A total of 9 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in this review. The PICOS model, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual, and PRISMA guidelines were applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review identified nine studies that developed predictive models for adverse events in psychiatric settings. Encompassing 41,566 participants across studies that used both ML and non-ML algorithmic approaches, performance metrics, primarily AUC ROC, varied among studies between 0.62 and 0.95. The best performing model that had also been validated was the random forest (RF) ML model, with a score of 0.87 and a high sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 88%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Currently, few predictive models have been developed for adverse events and patient deterioration in psychiatric settings. The findings of this review suggest that the use of ML and non-ML algorithms show moderate to good performance in predicting adverse events at the hospitals/units where the tool was developed. Understanding these models and the methodology of the studies is crucial for enhancing patient care as well as staff and patient safety research. Further research on the development and implementation of predictive tools in psychiatry should be carried out to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the tool in psychiatric patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"742"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06052-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Adverse events in psychiatric settings present ongoing challenges for both patients and staff. Despite advances in psychiatric interventions and treatments, research on early warning scores and tools to predict patient deterioration is limited. This review provides a summary of the few tools that have been developed in a psychiatric setting, comparing machine learning (ML) and nonmachine learning/traditional methodologies. The outcomes of interest include the selected key variables that contribute to adverse events and the performance and validation measures of the predictive models.

Methods: Three databases, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase, were searched between February 2023 and April 2023 to identify all relevant studies that included a combination of (and were not limited to) the following search terms: "Early warning," "Alerting tool," and "Psychiatry". Peer-reviewed primary research publications were included without imposing any date restrictions. A total of 1,193 studies were screened. A total of 9 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in this review. The PICOS model, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual, and PRISMA guidelines were applied.

Results: This review identified nine studies that developed predictive models for adverse events in psychiatric settings. Encompassing 41,566 participants across studies that used both ML and non-ML algorithmic approaches, performance metrics, primarily AUC ROC, varied among studies between 0.62 and 0.95. The best performing model that had also been validated was the random forest (RF) ML model, with a score of 0.87 and a high sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 88%.

Conclusion: Currently, few predictive models have been developed for adverse events and patient deterioration in psychiatric settings. The findings of this review suggest that the use of ML and non-ML algorithms show moderate to good performance in predicting adverse events at the hospitals/units where the tool was developed. Understanding these models and the methodology of the studies is crucial for enhancing patient care as well as staff and patient safety research. Further research on the development and implementation of predictive tools in psychiatry should be carried out to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the tool in psychiatric patients.

开发用于预测精神病患者不良事件的预警评分或警报系统:范围综述。
背景:精神病院的不良事件给患者和医护人员都带来了持续的挑战。尽管精神科干预和治疗取得了进展,但有关早期预警评分和预测患者病情恶化的工具的研究却十分有限。本综述总结了在精神病院环境中开发的少数工具,比较了机器学习(ML)和非机器学习/传统方法。关注的结果包括导致不良事件的选定关键变量以及预测模型的性能和验证措施:在 2023 年 2 月至 2023 年 4 月期间,对 Ovid MEDLINE、PsycINFO 和 Embase 三个数据库进行了检索,以确定所有包含以下检索词组合(但不限于以下检索词)的相关研究:"预警"、"警报工具 "和 "精神病学"。同行评议的主要研究出版物均被收录,没有任何日期限制。共筛选出 1,193 项研究。共有 9 项研究符合纳入和排除标准,被纳入本综述。采用了 PICOS 模型、乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(JBI)《审稿人手册》和 PRISMA 指南:本综述确定了九项研究,这些研究开发了精神病院不良事件的预测模型。这些研究涵盖了 41,566 名参与者,使用了 ML 和非 ML 算法方法,各研究的性能指标(主要是 AUC ROC)介于 0.62 和 0.95 之间。性能最好且经过验证的模型是随机森林(RF)ML 模型,得分 0.87,灵敏度高达 74%,特异度高达 88%:目前,针对精神病院不良事件和患者病情恶化的预测模型还很少。本综述的研究结果表明,在开发该工具的医院/单位中,使用 ML 和非 ML 算法在预测不良事件方面表现出中等至良好的性能。了解这些模型和研究方法对于加强患者护理以及员工和患者安全研究至关重要。应进一步研究精神病学预测工具的开发和实施,以评估该工具在精神病患者中的可行性和有效性。
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
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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