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

 

 Permissions and Reprints

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
  Search in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMed
• 5 Reis BY, Mandl KD. Time series modeling for syndromic surveillance. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2003; 3 (01) 2
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMed
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  Search in Google Scholar
• 22 Duckett S, Willcox S. The Australian Health Care System. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015
  Search in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 24 Beam AL, Kohane ISJJ. Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA 2018; 319 (13) 1317-1318
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 26 Johnson S. Risk Stratification and Next Steps with DH Risk Prediction tools. UK Government. London: Department of Health; 2011
  Search in Google Scholar
• 27 Pearce C, Haikerwal MC. E-health in Australia: time to plunge into the 21st century. Med J Aust 2010; 193 (07) 397-398
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar