Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10(01): 151-157
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1678608
Research Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

POLAR Diversion: Using General Practice Data to Calculate Risk of Emergency Department Presentation at the Time of Consultation

Christopher Pearce
1   Outcome Health, East Burwood, Victoria, Australia
,
Adam McLeod
1   Outcome Health, East Burwood, Victoria, Australia
,
Natalie Rinehart
1   Outcome Health, East Burwood, Victoria, Australia
,
Jon Patrick
2   Health Language Analytics, Eveleigh, New South Wales, Australia
,
Anna Fragkoudi
1   Outcome Health, East Burwood, Victoria, Australia
,
Jason Ferrigi
1   Outcome Health, East Burwood, Victoria, Australia
,
Elizabeth Deveny
3   South East Melbourne Primary Health Network, Melbourne, Australia
,
Robin Whyte
4   Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
,
Marianne Shearer
5   Gippsland Primary Health Network, Moe, Victoria, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Funding This research was undertaken with the generous assistance from the HCF Research Foundation. The foundation exerted no influence over the design or the progress of the study.
Further Information

Publication History

04 August 2018

04 January 2019

Publication Date:
27 February 2019 (online)

Abstract

Objective This project examined and produced a general practice (GP) based decision support tool (DST), namely POLAR Diversion, to predict a patient's risk of emergency department (ED) presentation. The tool was built using both GP/family practice and ED data, but is designed to operate on GP data alone.

Methods GP data from 50 practices during a defined time frame were linked with three local EDs. Linked data and data mapping were used to develop a machine learning DST to determine a range of variables that, in combination, led to predictive patient ED presentation risk scores. Thirteen percent of the GP data was kept as a control group and used to validate the tool.

Results The algorithm performed best in predicting the risk of attending ED within the 30-day time category, and also in the no ED attendance tests, suggesting few false positives. At 0 to 30 days the positive predictive value (PPV) was 74%, with a sensitivity/recall of 68%. Non-ED attendance had a PPV of 82% and sensitivity/recall of 96%.

Conclusion Findings indicate that the POLAR Diversion algorithm performed better than previously developed tools, particularly in the 0 to 30 day time category. Its utility increases because of it being based on the data within the GP system alone, with the ability to create real-time “in consultation” warnings. The tool will be deployed across GPs in Australia, allowing us to assess the clinical utility, and data quality needs in further iterations.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

No human subjects were involved in this project.


 
  • References

  • 1 Begg S, Vos T, Barker B, Stevenson C, Stanley L, Lopez AD. The burden of disease and injury in Australia 2003. PHE 82. Canberra: AIHW; 2007
  • 2 Harrison MJ, Dusheiko M, Sutton M, Gravelle H, Doran T, Roland M. Effect of a national primary care pay for performance scheme on emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: controlled longitudinal study. BMJ 2014; 349: g6423
  • 3 Billings J, Georghiou T, Blunt I, Bardsley M. Choosing a model to predict hospital admission: an observational study of new variants of predictive models for case finding. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (08) e003352
  • 4 Adelaide PHN. 2018 . Available at: https://www.adelaidephn.com.au/assets/Core_Operational_and_Flexible_AWP_2018_FINALDoH_version270918_Publicver.pdf . Accessed January 21, 2019
  • 5 Reis BY, Mandl KD. Time series modeling for syndromic surveillance. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2003; 3 (01) 2
  • 6 Jones SS, Thomas A, Evans RS, Welch SJ, Haug PJ, Snow GL. Forecasting daily patient volumes in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2008; 15 (02) 159-170
  • 7 Schweigler LM, Desmond JS, McCarthy ML, Bukowski KJ, Ionides EL, Younger JG. Forecasting models of emergency department crowding. Acad Emerg Med 2009; 16 (04) 301-308
  • 8 Wargon M, Casalino E, Guidet B. From model to forecasting: a multicenter study in emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17 (09) 970-978
  • 9 Crilly JL, Boyle J, Jessup M. , et al. The implementation and evaluation of the patient admission prediction tool: assessing its impact on decision-making strategies and patient flow outcomes in 2 Australian hospitals. Qual Manag Health Care 2015; 24 (04) 169-176
  • 10 Reuben DB, Keeler E, Seeman TE, Sewall A, Hirsch SH, Guralnik JM. Development of a method to identify seniors at high risk for high hospital utilization. Med Care 2002; 40 (09) 782-793
  • 11 Asplin BR, Flottemesch TJ, Gordon BD. Developing models for patient flow and daily surge capacity research. Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13 (11) 1109-1113
  • 12 Billings J, Dixon J, Mijanovich T, Wennberg D. Case finding for patients at risk of readmission to hospital: development of algorithm to identify high risk patients. BMJ 2006; 333 (7563): 327-330
  • 13 Donnan PT, Dorward DW, Mutch B, Morris AD. Development and validation of a model for predicting emergency admissions over the next year (PEONY): a UK historical cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168 (13) 1416-1422
  • 14 Essex Strategic Health Authority Combined Predictive Model. Final Report. 2006 . UK. Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_document/PARR-combined-predictive-model-final-report-dec06.pdf . Accessed January 21, 2019
  • 15 Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of emergency admission to hospital using primary care data: derivation and validation of QAdmissions score. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (08) e003482
  • 16 HARP W. Summary. HARP risk calculator. 2009. Available at: https://www.adma.org.au/clearinghouse/doc_details/11-western-harp-risk-calculator.html . Accessed January 21, 2019
  • 17 Howell S, Coory M, Martin J, Duckett S. Using routine inpatient data to identify patients at risk of hospital readmission. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9 (01) 96
  • 18 Khanna S, Boyle J, Good N. Precise prediction for managing chronic disease readmissions. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2014; 2014: 2734-2737
  • 19 Rana S, Tran T, Luo W, Phung D, Kennedy RL, Venkatesh S. Predicting unplanned readmission after myocardial infarction from routinely collected administrative hospital data. Aust Health Rev 2014; 38 (04) 377-382
  • 20 Gildersleeve R, Cooper P. Development of an automated, real time surveillance tool for predicting readmissions at a community hospital. Appl Clin Inform 2013; 4 (02) 153-169
  • 21 Beilby J, Furler J. General practitioner services in Australia. In: Pegram R, ed. General Practice in Australia: 2004. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, Australian Department Of Health and Ageing; 2005: 128-213
  • 22 Duckett S, Willcox S. The Australian Health Care System. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015
  • 23 Pearce C, Shearer M, Gardner K, Kelly J, Xu TB. GP Networks as enablers of quality of care: implementing a practice engagement framework in a general practice network. Aust J Prim Health 2012; 18 (02) 101-104
  • 24 Beam AL, Kohane ISJJ. Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA 2018; 319 (13) 1317-1318
  • 25 Pearce CM, McLeod A, Patrick J. , et al. Using patient flow information to determine risk of hospital presentation: protocol for a proof-of-concept study. JMIR Res Protoc 2016; 5 (04) e241
  • 26 Johnson S. Risk Stratification and Next Steps with DH Risk Prediction tools. UK Government. London: Department of Health; 2011
  • 27 Pearce C, Haikerwal MC. E-health in Australia: time to plunge into the 21st century. Med J Aust 2010; 193 (07) 397-398
  • 28 Yan J, Hawes L, Turner L, Mazza D, Pearce C, Buttery J. Antimicrobial prescribing for children in primary care. J Paediatr Child Health 2018; 55 (01) 54-58