InfoKids+: A Validation Study of a Pediatric Acuity Risk Stratification Algorithm

Carl A. Starvaggi MD , Sophie Affentranger MMed , Noelie Lengeler MMed , Johan N. Siebert MD , Annick Galetto-Lacour MD , Rainer Tan PhD , Manon Jaboyedoff MD , Claudia E. Kuehni MD , Mary-Anne Hartley PhD , Kristina Keitel PhD
{"title":"InfoKids+: A Validation Study of a Pediatric Acuity Risk Stratification Algorithm","authors":"Carl A. Starvaggi MD ,&nbsp;Sophie Affentranger MMed ,&nbsp;Noelie Lengeler MMed ,&nbsp;Johan N. Siebert MD ,&nbsp;Annick Galetto-Lacour MD ,&nbsp;Rainer Tan PhD ,&nbsp;Manon Jaboyedoff MD ,&nbsp;Claudia E. Kuehni MD ,&nbsp;Mary-Anne Hartley PhD ,&nbsp;Kristina Keitel PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To prospectively validate InfoKids+, a pediatric acuity electronic risk stratification algorithm (eRSA), against a nurse-based triage standard (nbTS).</div></div><div><h3>Participants and Methods</h3><div>We conducted a prospective validation study in a Swiss university hospital pediatric emergency department to assess the performance of a pediatric acuity eRSA, InfoKids+, on the basis of a well-established parental guidance application, InfoKids. Participants completed the eRSA once seated in a consultation booth. We compared the acuity levels from InfoKids+ (urgent, &lt;4 hours; nonurgent, &lt;24 hours; and no emergency, ≥24 hours) against an nbTS. The primary outcome was the level of agreement and rate of alignment between InfoKids+ and the reference standard.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 1990 participants from June 3, 2020, through January 31, 2022. InfoKids+ showed a slight level of agreement with the nbTS (κ<sub>lw</sub>=0.08; 95% CI, 0.06-0.10). InfoKids+ triaged 1762 (89%) cases as urgent (&lt;4 hours), 106 (5%) as nonurgent (≤24 hours), and 122 (6%) as no emergency (≥24 hours), compared with 810 (41%), 843 (42%), and 337 (17%) triages by the nbTS, respectively (<em>P</em>&lt;.001). InfoKids+ acuity level aligned with the reference standard in 888 (45%) cases, whereas it overreferred and underreferred in 999 (50%) and 103 (5%) cases, respectively (<em>P</em>&lt;.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In summary, our study uncovered notable discrepancies between the InfoKids+ algorithmic triage and conventional nurse-based triage. Our results highlight the critical need for rigorous validation of such tools for accuracy and safety before public release to ensure these tools are beneficial and do not inadvertently cause harm or misallocation of resources.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"3 2","pages":"Article 100220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761225000276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To prospectively validate InfoKids+, a pediatric acuity electronic risk stratification algorithm (eRSA), against a nurse-based triage standard (nbTS).

Participants and Methods

We conducted a prospective validation study in a Swiss university hospital pediatric emergency department to assess the performance of a pediatric acuity eRSA, InfoKids+, on the basis of a well-established parental guidance application, InfoKids. Participants completed the eRSA once seated in a consultation booth. We compared the acuity levels from InfoKids+ (urgent, <4 hours; nonurgent, <24 hours; and no emergency, ≥24 hours) against an nbTS. The primary outcome was the level of agreement and rate of alignment between InfoKids+ and the reference standard.

Results

We included 1990 participants from June 3, 2020, through January 31, 2022. InfoKids+ showed a slight level of agreement with the nbTS (κlw=0.08; 95% CI, 0.06-0.10). InfoKids+ triaged 1762 (89%) cases as urgent (<4 hours), 106 (5%) as nonurgent (≤24 hours), and 122 (6%) as no emergency (≥24 hours), compared with 810 (41%), 843 (42%), and 337 (17%) triages by the nbTS, respectively (P<.001). InfoKids+ acuity level aligned with the reference standard in 888 (45%) cases, whereas it overreferred and underreferred in 999 (50%) and 103 (5%) cases, respectively (P<.001).

Conclusion

In summary, our study uncovered notable discrepancies between the InfoKids+ algorithmic triage and conventional nurse-based triage. Our results highlight the critical need for rigorous validation of such tools for accuracy and safety before public release to ensure these tools are beneficial and do not inadvertently cause harm or misallocation of resources.
InfoKids+:一项儿科急性风险分层算法的验证研究
目的针对基于护士的分诊标准(nbTS),对儿童急症电子风险分层算法(eRSA) InfoKids+进行前瞻性验证。参与者和方法我们在瑞士一所大学医院的儿科急诊科进行了一项前瞻性验证研究,在完善的家长指导应用程序InfoKids的基础上,评估儿童视力eRSA (InfoKids+)的性能。参与者坐在咨询台后完成eRSA。我们比较了InfoKids+(紧急,4小时;非紧急,24小时;无紧急情况,≥24小时)。主要结果是InfoKids+与参考标准之间的一致性水平和一致性率。从2020年6月3日到2022年1月31日,我们纳入了1990名参与者。InfoKids+与nbTS略有一致(κlw=0.08;95% ci, 0.06-0.10)。InfoKids+将1762例(89%)病例分类为紧急(4小时),106例(5%)为非紧急(≤24小时),122例(6%)为无紧急(≥24小时),而nbTS分别为810例(41%),843例(42%)和337例(17%)(P< 001)。在888例(45%)病例中,InfoKids+视力水平符合参考标准,而在999例(50%)和103例(5%)病例中,InfoKids+视力水平过高和过低(P<.001)。总之,我们的研究揭示了InfoKids+算法分诊与传统护士分诊之间的显著差异。我们的结果强调了在公开发布之前对这些工具的准确性和安全性进行严格验证的关键需求,以确保这些工具是有益的,不会无意中造成伤害或资源分配不当。
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
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health Medicine and Dentistry (General), Health Informatics, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信