Elizabeth Joyce, James McMullen, Xiaowen Kong, Connor O'Hare, Valerie Gavrila, Anthony Cuttitta, Geoffrey D Barnes, Colin F Greineder
{"title":"基于电子健康记录的自动肺栓塞严重程度指数评分计算器的性能:急诊科队列研究","authors":"Elizabeth Joyce, James McMullen, Xiaowen Kong, Connor O'Hare, Valerie Gavrila, Anthony Cuttitta, Geoffrey D Barnes, Colin F Greineder","doi":"10.2196/58800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies suggest that less than 4% of patients with pulmonary embolisms (PEs) are managed in the outpatient setting. Strong evidence and multiple guidelines support the use of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) for the identification of acute PE patients appropriate for outpatient management. However, calculating the PESI score can be inconvenient in a busy emergency department (ED). To facilitate integration into ED workflow, we created a 2023 Epic-compatible clinical decision support tool that automatically calculates the PESI score in real-time with patients' electronic health data (ePESI [Electronic Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index]).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objectives of this study were to determine the overall accuracy of ePESI and its ability to correctly distinguish high- and low-risk PESI scores within the Epic 2023 software. The secondary objective was to identify variables that impact ePESI accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected ePESI scores on 500 consecutive patients at least 18 years old who underwent a computerized tomography-pulmonary embolism scan in the ED of our tertiary, academic health center between January 3 and February 15, 2023. We compared ePESI results to a PESI score calculated by 2 independent, medically-trained abstractors blinded to the ePESI and each other's results. ePESI accuracy was calculated with binomial test. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 500 patients, a total of 203 (40.6%) and 297 (59.4%) patients had low- and high-risk PESI scores, respectively. The ePESI exactly matched the calculated PESI in 394 out of 500 cases, with an accuracy of 78.8% (95% CI 74.9%-82.3%), and correctly identified low- versus high-risk in 477 out of 500 (95.4%) cases. The accuracy of the ePESI was higher for low-risk scores (OR 2.96, P<.001) and lower when patients were without prior encounters in the health system (OR 0.42, P=.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this single-center study, the ePESI was highly accurate in discriminating between low- and high-risk scores. The clinical decision support should facilitate real-time identification of patients who may be candidates for outpatient PE management.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"13 ","pages":"e58800"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769779/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of an Electronic Health Record-Based Automated Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Score Calculator: Cohort Study in the Emergency Department.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Joyce, James McMullen, Xiaowen Kong, Connor O'Hare, Valerie Gavrila, Anthony Cuttitta, Geoffrey D Barnes, Colin F Greineder\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/58800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies suggest that less than 4% of patients with pulmonary embolisms (PEs) are managed in the outpatient setting. Strong evidence and multiple guidelines support the use of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) for the identification of acute PE patients appropriate for outpatient management. However, calculating the PESI score can be inconvenient in a busy emergency department (ED). To facilitate integration into ED workflow, we created a 2023 Epic-compatible clinical decision support tool that automatically calculates the PESI score in real-time with patients' electronic health data (ePESI [Electronic Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index]).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objectives of this study were to determine the overall accuracy of ePESI and its ability to correctly distinguish high- and low-risk PESI scores within the Epic 2023 software. The secondary objective was to identify variables that impact ePESI accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected ePESI scores on 500 consecutive patients at least 18 years old who underwent a computerized tomography-pulmonary embolism scan in the ED of our tertiary, academic health center between January 3 and February 15, 2023. We compared ePESI results to a PESI score calculated by 2 independent, medically-trained abstractors blinded to the ePESI and each other's results. ePESI accuracy was calculated with binomial test. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 500 patients, a total of 203 (40.6%) and 297 (59.4%) patients had low- and high-risk PESI scores, respectively. The ePESI exactly matched the calculated PESI in 394 out of 500 cases, with an accuracy of 78.8% (95% CI 74.9%-82.3%), and correctly identified low- versus high-risk in 477 out of 500 (95.4%) cases. The accuracy of the ePESI was higher for low-risk scores (OR 2.96, P<.001) and lower when patients were without prior encounters in the health system (OR 0.42, P=.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this single-center study, the ePESI was highly accurate in discriminating between low- and high-risk scores. The clinical decision support should facilitate real-time identification of patients who may be candidates for outpatient PE management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Informatics\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e58800\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769779/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/58800\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/58800","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
摘要
背景:研究表明,不到4%的肺栓塞(PEs)患者在门诊进行治疗。强有力的证据和多个指南支持使用肺栓塞严重程度指数(PESI)来识别适合门诊治疗的急性肺动脉栓塞患者。然而,在繁忙的急诊科(ED)计算PESI评分可能不方便。为了便于整合到ED工作流程中,我们创建了一个2023年epic兼容的临床决策支持工具,该工具可以根据患者的电子健康数据(ePESI[电子肺栓塞严重程度指数])实时自动计算PESI评分。目的:本研究的主要目的是确定ePESI的总体准确性及其在Epic 2023软件中正确区分高风险和低风险PESI评分的能力。第二个目标是确定影响ePESI准确性的变量。方法:我们收集了2023年1月3日至2月15日在我们的三级学术卫生中心急诊科接受计算机断层扫描-肺栓塞扫描的500名18岁以上连续患者的ePESI评分。我们将ePESI结果与由2名独立的、受过医学训练的抽象人员对ePESI和彼此的结果不知情计算的PESI分数进行比较。采用二项检验计算ePESI精度。采用logistic回归计算比值比(OR)。结果:500例患者中,共有203例(40.6%)和297例(59.4%)患者的PESI评分为低危和高危。ePESI在500例中有394例与计算的PESI完全匹配,准确率为78.8% (95% CI 74.9%-82.3%),在500例中有477例(95.4%)正确识别出低高危。ePESI对低风险评分的准确性更高(OR 2.96, p)。结论:在本单中心研究中,ePESI在区分低风险评分和高风险评分方面具有较高的准确性。临床决策支持应促进实时识别患者谁可能是候选人的门诊PE管理。
Performance of an Electronic Health Record-Based Automated Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Score Calculator: Cohort Study in the Emergency Department.
Background: Studies suggest that less than 4% of patients with pulmonary embolisms (PEs) are managed in the outpatient setting. Strong evidence and multiple guidelines support the use of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) for the identification of acute PE patients appropriate for outpatient management. However, calculating the PESI score can be inconvenient in a busy emergency department (ED). To facilitate integration into ED workflow, we created a 2023 Epic-compatible clinical decision support tool that automatically calculates the PESI score in real-time with patients' electronic health data (ePESI [Electronic Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index]).
Objective: The primary objectives of this study were to determine the overall accuracy of ePESI and its ability to correctly distinguish high- and low-risk PESI scores within the Epic 2023 software. The secondary objective was to identify variables that impact ePESI accuracy.
Methods: We collected ePESI scores on 500 consecutive patients at least 18 years old who underwent a computerized tomography-pulmonary embolism scan in the ED of our tertiary, academic health center between January 3 and February 15, 2023. We compared ePESI results to a PESI score calculated by 2 independent, medically-trained abstractors blinded to the ePESI and each other's results. ePESI accuracy was calculated with binomial test. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using logistic regression.
Results: Of the 500 patients, a total of 203 (40.6%) and 297 (59.4%) patients had low- and high-risk PESI scores, respectively. The ePESI exactly matched the calculated PESI in 394 out of 500 cases, with an accuracy of 78.8% (95% CI 74.9%-82.3%), and correctly identified low- versus high-risk in 477 out of 500 (95.4%) cases. The accuracy of the ePESI was higher for low-risk scores (OR 2.96, P<.001) and lower when patients were without prior encounters in the health system (OR 0.42, P=.008).
Conclusions: In this single-center study, the ePESI was highly accurate in discriminating between low- and high-risk scores. The clinical decision support should facilitate real-time identification of patients who may be candidates for outpatient PE management.
期刊介绍:
JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals.
Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.