Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) readiness predictions using machine learning: a comparative study of algorithms.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Shahnam Sedigh Maroufi, Maryam Soleimani Movahed, Azar Ejmalian, Maryam Sarkhosh, Ali Behmanesh
{"title":"Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) readiness predictions using machine learning: a comparative study of algorithms.","authors":"Shahnam Sedigh Maroufi, Maryam Soleimani Movahed, Azar Ejmalian, Maryam Sarkhosh, Ali Behmanesh","doi":"10.1186/s12911-025-02982-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Accurate and timely discharge from the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) is essential to prevent postoperative complications and optimize hospital resource utilization. Premature discharge can lead to severe issues such as respiratory or cardiovascular complications, while delays can strain hospital capacity. Machine learning algorithms offer a promising solution by leveraging large amounts of patient data to predict optimal discharge times. Unlike prior studies relying on statistical models or single-algorithm methods, this research assesses multiple ML models to predict discharge readiness, comparing them against staff evaluations and the Aldrete checklist.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study of 830 patients under general anesthesia from December 2023 to April 2024, collecting demographics, surgical details, and Aldrete scores. A power analysis ensured statistical robustness, targeting a 5% accuracy improvement (minimum clinically important difference, derived from Gabriel et al., 2017), with variance (SD ≈ 0.1) from pilot data, using a two-sample t-test (power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05), confirming the sample size's adequacy. Two prediction approaches were tested: discharge timing in 15-minute intervals and binary classification (within 15 min or later). Models included Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and XGBoost, assessed via accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and AUC. Predictions were benchmarked against staff and Aldrete scores, with 99.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusting for multiple comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>he RF algorithm showed high performance in both prediction approaches. In the first approach, RF achieved an AUC of 0.75 (99.5% CI: 0.70-0.80) and accuracy of 0.87 (99.5% CI: 0.83-0.91) per staff evaluations, and an AUC of 0.87 (99.5% CI: 0.83-0.91) and accuracy of 0.71 (99.5% CI: 0.66-0.76) per Aldrete scores. In the second approach, RF recorded an AUC of 0.85 (99.5% CI: 0.81-0.89) and accuracy of 0.86 (99.5% CI: 0.82-0.90) per staff evaluations, with ANN also showing strong results (AUC = 0.88, 99.5% CI: 0.84-0.92; accuracy = 0.78, 99.5% CI: 0.74-0.82). Due to overlapping CIs, differences between models were not statistically significant (P >.005). According to the Aldrete checklist, RF, SVM, and ANN exhibited competitive predictive capability, with AUCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.86.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The strong performance of Random Forest (RF) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models in predicting PACU discharge timing upon admission highlights their potential as effective tools for evaluating discharge readiness, as compared to staff assessments and the Aldrete checklist. This study focused on assessing these models, showing their ability to produce consistent predictions, though differences between top models were not statistically significant due to overlapping confidence intervals. Practical application of these findings to improve patient outcomes or hospital efficiency requires further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9340,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","volume":"25 1","pages":"146"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11934757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-025-02982-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate and timely discharge from the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) is essential to prevent postoperative complications and optimize hospital resource utilization. Premature discharge can lead to severe issues such as respiratory or cardiovascular complications, while delays can strain hospital capacity. Machine learning algorithms offer a promising solution by leveraging large amounts of patient data to predict optimal discharge times. Unlike prior studies relying on statistical models or single-algorithm methods, this research assesses multiple ML models to predict discharge readiness, comparing them against staff evaluations and the Aldrete checklist.

Methodology: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 830 patients under general anesthesia from December 2023 to April 2024, collecting demographics, surgical details, and Aldrete scores. A power analysis ensured statistical robustness, targeting a 5% accuracy improvement (minimum clinically important difference, derived from Gabriel et al., 2017), with variance (SD ≈ 0.1) from pilot data, using a two-sample t-test (power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05), confirming the sample size's adequacy. Two prediction approaches were tested: discharge timing in 15-minute intervals and binary classification (within 15 min or later). Models included Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and XGBoost, assessed via accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and AUC. Predictions were benchmarked against staff and Aldrete scores, with 99.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusting for multiple comparisons.

Results: he RF algorithm showed high performance in both prediction approaches. In the first approach, RF achieved an AUC of 0.75 (99.5% CI: 0.70-0.80) and accuracy of 0.87 (99.5% CI: 0.83-0.91) per staff evaluations, and an AUC of 0.87 (99.5% CI: 0.83-0.91) and accuracy of 0.71 (99.5% CI: 0.66-0.76) per Aldrete scores. In the second approach, RF recorded an AUC of 0.85 (99.5% CI: 0.81-0.89) and accuracy of 0.86 (99.5% CI: 0.82-0.90) per staff evaluations, with ANN also showing strong results (AUC = 0.88, 99.5% CI: 0.84-0.92; accuracy = 0.78, 99.5% CI: 0.74-0.82). Due to overlapping CIs, differences between models were not statistically significant (P >.005). According to the Aldrete checklist, RF, SVM, and ANN exhibited competitive predictive capability, with AUCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.86.

Conclusion: The strong performance of Random Forest (RF) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models in predicting PACU discharge timing upon admission highlights their potential as effective tools for evaluating discharge readiness, as compared to staff assessments and the Aldrete checklist. This study focused on assessing these models, showing their ability to produce consistent predictions, though differences between top models were not statistically significant due to overlapping confidence intervals. Practical application of these findings to improve patient outcomes or hospital efficiency requires further investigation.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of health information technologies and decision-making for human health.
×
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