A comparative study of supervised machine learning approaches to predict patient triage outcomes in hospital emergency departments

IF 2.3 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS
Array Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.array.2023.100281
Hamza Elhaj , Nebil Achour , Marzia Hoque Tania , Kurtulus Aciksari
{"title":"A comparative study of supervised machine learning approaches to predict patient triage outcomes in hospital emergency departments","authors":"Hamza Elhaj ,&nbsp;Nebil Achour ,&nbsp;Marzia Hoque Tania ,&nbsp;Kurtulus Aciksari","doi":"10.1016/j.array.2023.100281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The inconsistency in triage evaluation in emergency departments (EDs) and the limitations in practice within the standard triage tools among triage nurses have led researchers to seek more accurate and robust triage evaluation that provides better patient prioritization based on their medical conditions. This study aspires to establish the best methodological practices for applying machine learning (ML) techniques to build an automated triage model for more accurate evaluation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comparative study of selected supervised ML models was conducted to determine the best-performing approach to evaluate patient triage outcomes in hospital emergency departments. A retrospective dataset of 2688 patients who visited the ED between April 1, 2020 and June 9, 2020 was collected. Data included patient demographics (age and gender), Vital signs (body temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation), chief complaints, and chronic illness. Nine supervised ML techniques were investigated in this study. Models were trained based on patient disposition outcomes and then validated to evaluate their performance.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>ML models show high capabilities in predicting patient disposition outcomes in ED settings. Four models (KNN, GBDT, XGBoost, and RF) performed better than the rest. RF was selected as the optimal model as it demonstrated a slight advantage over the other models with 89.1% micro accuracy, 89.0% precision, 89.1% recall, and 89.0% F1-score, exhibiting outstanding performance in differentiation between patients with critical outcomes (e.g., Mortality and ICU admission) from those patients with less critical outcomes (e.g., discharged and hospitalized) in ED settings.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Machine learning techniques demonstrate high promise in improving predictive abilities in emergency medicine and providing robust decision-making tools that can enhance the patient triage process, assist triage personnel in their decision and thus reduce the effects of ED overcrowding and enhance patient outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8417,"journal":{"name":"Array","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Array","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590005623000061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background

The inconsistency in triage evaluation in emergency departments (EDs) and the limitations in practice within the standard triage tools among triage nurses have led researchers to seek more accurate and robust triage evaluation that provides better patient prioritization based on their medical conditions. This study aspires to establish the best methodological practices for applying machine learning (ML) techniques to build an automated triage model for more accurate evaluation.

Methods

A comparative study of selected supervised ML models was conducted to determine the best-performing approach to evaluate patient triage outcomes in hospital emergency departments. A retrospective dataset of 2688 patients who visited the ED between April 1, 2020 and June 9, 2020 was collected. Data included patient demographics (age and gender), Vital signs (body temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation), chief complaints, and chronic illness. Nine supervised ML techniques were investigated in this study. Models were trained based on patient disposition outcomes and then validated to evaluate their performance.

Findings

ML models show high capabilities in predicting patient disposition outcomes in ED settings. Four models (KNN, GBDT, XGBoost, and RF) performed better than the rest. RF was selected as the optimal model as it demonstrated a slight advantage over the other models with 89.1% micro accuracy, 89.0% precision, 89.1% recall, and 89.0% F1-score, exhibiting outstanding performance in differentiation between patients with critical outcomes (e.g., Mortality and ICU admission) from those patients with less critical outcomes (e.g., discharged and hospitalized) in ED settings.

Conclusion

Machine learning techniques demonstrate high promise in improving predictive abilities in emergency medicine and providing robust decision-making tools that can enhance the patient triage process, assist triage personnel in their decision and thus reduce the effects of ED overcrowding and enhance patient outcomes.

监督机器学习方法在医院急诊科预测患者分诊结果的比较研究
急诊科(EDs)分诊评估的不一致性以及分诊护士标准分诊工具在实践中的局限性,促使研究人员寻求更准确、更稳健的分诊评估,以根据患者的医疗状况为患者提供更好的优先级。本研究旨在建立应用机器学习(ML)技术的最佳方法实践,以建立更准确评估的自动分类模型。方法对选定的监督ML模型进行比较研究,以确定评估医院急诊科患者分诊结果的最佳方法。收集了2020年4月1日至2020年6月9日期间访问急诊科的2688名患者的回顾性数据。数据包括患者人口统计(年龄和性别)、生命体征(体温、呼吸频率、心率、血压和血氧饱和度)、主诉和慢性疾病。本研究调查了九种监督机器学习技术。模型是根据患者处置结果进行训练的,然后进行验证以评估其性能。发现sml模型在预测急诊科患者处置结果方面表现出很高的能力。四种模型(KNN, GBDT, XGBoost和RF)表现优于其他模型。RF被选为最佳模型,因为它比其他模型有89.1%的微准确度、89.0%的精度、89.1%的召回率和89.0%的f1评分略有优势,在区分急诊科重症结局(如死亡率和ICU入院)和非重症结局(如出院和住院)的患者方面表现出色。结论:机器学习技术在提高急诊医学的预测能力和提供强大的决策工具方面表现出很大的希望,这些决策工具可以增强患者分诊过程,协助分诊人员做出决策,从而减少急诊科过度拥挤的影响,提高患者的预后。
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
Array
Array Computer Science-General Computer Science
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
93
审稿时长
45 days
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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