Can Prehospital Data Improve Early Identification of Sepsis in Emergency Department? An Integrative Review of Machine Learning Approaches

Abstract

Background Sepsis is associated with high mortality, especially during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Along with high monetary health care costs for sepsis treatment, there is a lasting impact on lives of sepsis survivors and their caregivers. Early identification is necessary to reduce the negative impact of sepsis and to improve patient outcomes. Prehospital data are among the earliest information collected by health care systems. Using these untapped sources of data in machine learning (ML)-based approaches can identify patients with sepsis earlier in emergency department (ED).

Objectives This integrative literature review aims to discuss the importance of utilizing prehospital data elements in ED, summarize their current use in developing ML-based prediction models, and specifically identify those data elements that can potentially contribute to early identification of sepsis in ED when used in ML-based approaches.

Method Literature search strategy includes following two separate searches: (1) use of prehospital data in ML models in ED; and (2) ML models that are developed specifically to predict/detect sepsis in ED. In total, 24 articles are used in this review.

Results A summary of prehospital data used to identify time-sensitive conditions earlier in ED is provided. Literature related to use of ML models for early identification of sepsis in ED is limited and no studies were found related to ML models using prehospital data in prediction/early identification of sepsis in ED. Among those using ED data, ML models outperform traditional statistical models. In addition, the use of the free-text elements and natural language processing (NLP) methods could result in better prediction of sepsis in ED.

Conclusion This study reviews the use of prehospital data in early decision-making in ED and suggests that researchers utilize such data elements for prediction/early identification of sepsis in ML-based approaches.

Keywords

artificial intelligence - early identification - machine learning - prehospital data - sepsis

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This literature review did not require IRB approval.

Publication History

Received: 05 August 2021

Accepted: 20 December 2021

Article published online:
02 February 2022

• References

• 1 National Institute of Health. Sepsis. Accessed November 11, 2020 at: https://www.nigms.nih.gov/education/fact-sheets/Pages/sepsis.aspx
• 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clinical information. Accessed November 11, 2020 at: https://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/clinicaltools/index.html
• 3 Brück E, Schandl A, Bottai M, Sackey P. The impact of sepsis, delirium, and psychological distress on self-rated cognitive function in ICU survivors-a prospective cohort study. J Intensive Care 2018; 6: 2
• 4 Torio CM, Moore BJ. National Inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2013. Statistical brief #204. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016
• 5 Gallop KH, Kerr CE, Nixon A, Verdian L, Barney JB, Beale RJ. A qualitative investigation of patients' and caregivers' experiences of severe sepsis*. Crit Care Med 2015; 43 (02) 296-307
• 6 Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML. et al; Sepsis Definitions Task Force. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315 (08) 775-787
• 7 Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS. et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40 (11) 1623-1633
• 8 Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD. et al. The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 196 (07) 856-863
• 9 Westphal GA, Koenig Á, Caldeira Filho M. et al. Reduced mortality after the implementation of a protocol for the early detection of severe sepsis. J Crit Care 2011; 26 (01) 76-81
• 10 Amland RC, Hahn-Cover KE. Clinical decision support for early recognition of sepsis. Am J Med Qual 2019; 34 (05) 494-501
• 11 Manaktala S, Claypool SR. Evaluating the impact of a computerized surveillance algorithm and decision support system on sepsis mortality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (01) 88-95
• 12 Teng AK, Wilcox AB. A review of predictive analytics solutions for sepsis patients. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 387-398
• 13 Martin TJ, Ranney ML, Dorroh J, Asselin N, Sarkar IN. Health information exchange in emergency medical services. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (04) 884-891
• 14 Asheim A, Bache-Wiig Bjørnsen LP, Næss-Pleym LE, Uleberg O, Dale J, Nilsen SM. Real-time forecasting of emergency department arrivals using prehospital data. BMC Emerg Med 2019; 19 (01) 42
• 15 Al-Dury N, Ravn-Fischer A, Hollenberg J. et al. Identifying the relative importance of predictors of survival in out of hospital cardiac arrest: a machine learning study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2020; 28 (01) 60
• 16 Amorim RL, Oliveira LM, Malbouisson LM. et al. Prediction of early TBI mortality using a machine learning approach in a LMIC population. Front Neurol 2020; 10: 1366
• 17 Koami H, Sakamoto Y, Sakurai R. et al. Thromboelastometric analysis of the risk factors for return of spontaneous circulation in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. PLoS One 2017; 12 (04) e0175257
• 18 Seki T, Tamura T, Suzuki M. SOS-KANTO 2012 Study Group. Outcome prediction of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with presumed cardiac aetiology using an advanced machine learning technique. Resuscitation 2019; 141: 128-135
• 19 Pirneskoski J, Kuisma M, Olkkola KT, Nurmi J. Prehospital national early warning score predicts early mortality. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2019; 63 (05) 676-683
• 20 Spangler D, Hermansson T, Smekal D, Blomberg H. A validation of machine learning-based risk scores in the prehospital setting. PLoS One 2019; 14 (12) e0226518
• 21 You J, Tsang ACO, Yu PLH. et al. Automated hierarchy evaluation system of large vessel occlusion in acute ischemia stroke. Front Neuroinform 2020; 14: 13
• 22 Peltan ID, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Vande Vusse LK. et al. Development and validation of a prehospital prediction model for acute traumatic coagulopathy. Crit Care 2016; 20 (01) 371
• 23 Picon A, Irusta U, Álvarez-Gila A. et al. Mixed convolutional and long short-term memory network for the detection of lethal ventricular arrhythmia. PLoS One 2019; 14 (05) e0216756
• 24 Duceau B, Alsac JM, Bellenfant F. et al. Prehospital triage of acute aortic syndrome using a machine learning algorithm. Br J Surg 2020; 107 (08) 995-1003
• 25 van der Sluijs R, Debray TPA, Poeze M, Leenen LPH, van Heijl M. Development and validation of a novel prediction model to identify patients in need of specialized trauma care during field triage: design and rationale of the GOAT study. Diagn Progn Res 2019; 3: 12
• 26 McCoy A, Das R. Reducing patient mortality, length of stay and readmissions through machine learning-based sepsis prediction in the emergency department, intensive care unit and hospital floor units. BMJ Open Qual 2017; 6 (02) e000158
• 27 Danner OK, Hendren S, Santiago E, Nye B, Abraham P. Physiologically-based, predictive analytics using the heart-rate-to-Systolic-Ratio significantly improves the timeliness and accuracy of sepsis prediction compared to SIRS. Am J Surg 2017; 213 (04) 617-621
• 28 Horng S, Sontag DA, Halpern Y, Jernite Y, Shapiro NI, Nathanson LA. Creating an automated trigger for sepsis clinical decision support at emergency department triage using machine learning. PLoS One 2017; 12 (04) e0174708
• 29 Mao Q, Jay M, Hoffman JL. et al. Multicentre validation of a sepsis prediction algorithm using only vital sign data in the emergency department, general ward and ICU. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (01) e017833
• 30 Mohamed A, Ying H, Sherwin R. Electronic-medical-record-based identification of sepsis patients in emergency department: a machine learning perspective. In: International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Applications; February 5–7, 2020, 2020; Lucknow, India
• 31 Kim J, Chang H, Kim D, Jang DH, Park I, Kim K. Machine learning for prediction of septic shock at initial triage in emergency department. J Crit Care 2020; 55: 163-170
• 32 Fleuren LM, Klausch TLT, Zwager CL. et al. Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46 (03) 383-400
• 33 Delahanty RJ, Kaufman D, Jones SS. Development and evaluation of an automated machine learning algorithm for in-hospital mortality risk adjustment among critical care patients. Crit Care Med 2018; 46 (06) e481-e488
• 34 Perng JW, Kao IH, Kung CT, Hung SC, Lai YH, Su CM. Mortality prediction of septic patients in the emergency department based on machine learning. J Clin Med 2019; 8 (11) E1906
• 35 Taylor RA, Pare JR, Venkatesh AK. et al. Prediction of in-hospital mortality in emergency department patients with sepsis: a local big data-driven, machine learning approach. Acad Emerg Med 2016; 23 (03) 269-278
• 36 Gupta A, Liu T, Shepherd S, Paiva W. Using statistical and machine learning methods to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of SIRS and qSOFA. Healthc Inform Res 2018; 24 (02) 139-147
• 37 Chiew CJ, Wang H, Ong MEH. et al. Serial heart rate variability measures for risk prediction of septic patients in the emergency department. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2020; 2019: 285-294
• 38 Kwon YS, Baek MS. Development and validation of a quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment-based machine-learning model for mortality prediction in patients with suspected infection in the emergency department. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (03) E875
• 39 Islam MM, Nasrin T, Walther BA, Wu CC, Yang HC, Li YC. Prediction of sepsis patients using machine learning approach: a meta-analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2019; 170: 1-9
• 40 Mashoufi M, Ayatollahi H, Khorasani-Zavareh D. A review of data quality assessment in emergency medical services. Open Med Inform J 2018; 12: 19-32
• 41 Bolodeoku J, Ogbeiwi O, Ma K, Sa A. Laboratory tests turnaround time in outpatient and emergency patients in nigeria: results of a physician survey on point of care testing. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2017; 6 (05) 76-81
• 42 Kareemi H, Vaillancourt C, Rosenberg H, Fournier K, Yadav K. Machine learning versus usual care for diagnostic and prognostic prediction in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2021; 28 (02) 184-196
• 43 DePalo P. Electronic health record interoperability across transport medicine [dissertation]. Towson, Maryland: Towson University Institutional Repository; 2014
• 44 Xia Y, Zhou Y, Liu X, Zhao N, Xiao S. How the integration of emergency medical services with Health Information Systems enhances quality of service. Accessed January 5, 2021 at: https://eapj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Integration-of-Emergency-Medical-Services-with-Health-Information-Systems.pdf
• 45 Nakayama M, Inoue R, Miyata S, Shimizu H. Health information exchange between specialists and general practitioners benefits rural patients. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (03) 564-572