Abstract
Machine learning for hospital operations is under-studied. We present a prediction pipeline that uses live electronic health-records for patients in a UK teaching hospital’s emergency department (ED) to generate short-term, probabilistic forecasts of emergency admissions. A set of XGBoost classifiers applied to 109,465 ED visits yielded AUROCs from 0.82 to 0.90 depending on elapsed visit-time at the point of prediction. Patient-level probabilities of admission were aggregated to forecast the number of admissions among current ED patients and, incorporating patients yet to arrive, total emergency admissions within specified time-windows. The pipeline gave a mean absolute error (MAE) of 4.0 admissions (mean percentage error of 17%) versus 6.5 (32%) for a benchmark metric. Models developed with 104,504 later visits during the Covid-19 pandemic gave AUROCs of 0.68-0.90 and MAE of 4.2 (30%) versus a 4.9 (33%) benchmark. We discuss how we surmounted challenges of designing and implementing models for real-time use, including temporal framing, data preparation, and changing operational conditions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre (award number 180143) with matched funding from the Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The contribution of MU and JG was funded under the National Institute for Health Research (Artificial Intelligence, Digitally adapted, hyper-local realtime bed forecasting to manage flow for NHS wards, AI_AWARD01786) and NHSX. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research, NHSX or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was deemed exempt from NHS and UCL Research Ethics Committee review as there is no change to treatment or services or any study randomisation of patients into different treatment groups. It was considered a Service Evaluation according to the HRA decision tool (http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/), and this was confirmed by the UCL/UCLH Joint Research Office
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Changes to the manuscript in response to reviewers' suggestions. The main additions are: - comparing Random Forest and Logistic Regression with XGBoost(Figure 4 and supplementary note 8) - use of Lasso regularisation of Logistic Regression to find out how model performance is affected by fewer variables (Figure 4 and supplementary note 8) - comparing use of only 3 models with using 12 (supplementary note 7) - addition of information about the application in use (supplementary note 9) - addition of evaluation of the Cox and Poisson regression equations (supplementary notes 4 and 5)
Data Availability
The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available: due to reasonable privacy and security concerns, the underlying EHR data are not easily redistributable to researchers other than those engaged in approved research collaborations with the hospital.
