RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Emergency medicine patient wait time multivariable prediction models: a multicentre derivation and validation study JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.03.19.21253921 DO 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253921 A1 Katie Walker A1 Jirayus Jiarpakdee A1 Anne Loupis A1 Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn A1 Keith Joe A1 Michael Ben-Meir A1 Hamed Akhlaghi A1 Jennie Hutton A1 Wei Wang A1 Michael Stephenson A1 Gabriel Blecher A1 Paul Buntine A1 Amy Sweeny A1 Burak Turhan A1 On behalf of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, Clinical Trials Network YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.19.21253921.abstract AB Objective Patients, families and community members would like emergency department wait time visibility. This would improve patient journeys through emergency medicine. The study objective was to derive, internally and externally validate machine learning models to predict emergency patient wait times that are applicable to a wide variety of emergency departments.Methods Twelve emergency departments provided three years of retrospective administrative data from Australia (2017-19). Descriptive and exploratory analyses were undertaken on the datasets. Statistical and machine learning models were developed to predict wait times at each site and were internally and externally validated. Model performance was tested on COVID-19 period data (January to June 2020).Results There were 1,930,609 patient episodes analysed and median site wait times varied from 24 to 54 minutes. Individual site model prediction median absolute errors varied from +/−22.6 minutes (95%CI 22.4,22.9) to +/− 44.0 minutes (95%CI 43.4,44.4). Global model prediction median absolute errors varied from +/−33.9 minutes (95%CI 33.4, 34.0) to +/−43.8 minutes (95%CI 43.7, 43.9). Random forest and linear regression models performed the best, rolling average models under-estimated wait times. Important variables were triage category, last-k patient average wait time, and arrival time. Wait time prediction models are not transferable across hospitals. Models performed well during the COVID-19 lockdown period.Conclusions Electronic emergency demographic and flow information can be used to approximate emergency patient wait times. A general model is less accurate if applied without site specific factors.What is already known on this subject⍰ Patients and families want to know approximate emergency wait times, which will improve their ability to manage their logistical, physical and emotional needs whilst waiting⍰ There are a few small studies from a limited number of jurisdictions, reporting model methods, important predictor variables and accuracy of derived modelsWhat this study adds⍰ Our study demonstrates that predicting wait times from simple, readily available data is complex and provides estimates that aren’t as accurate as patients would like, however rough estimates may still be better than no information⍰ We present the most influential variables regarding wait times and advise against using rolling average models, preferring random forest or linear regression techniques⍰ Emergency medicine machine learning models may be less generalisable to other sites than we hope for when we read manuscripts or buy commercial off-the-shelf models or algorithms. Models developed for one site lose accuracy at another site and global models built for whole systems may need customisation to each individual site. This may apply to data science clinical decision instruments as well as operational machine learning models.Competing Interest StatementSome authors and collaborators are emergency physicians or directors, others work in community health (pre-hospital and district nursing). One collaborator is a consumer.Clinical TrialNot a clinical trialFunding StatementThe Australian government, Medical Research Future Fund, via Monash Partners, funded this study. Researchers contributed in-kind donations of time. The Cabrini Institute and Monash University provided research infrastructure support.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study received Monash Health ethics committee approval (RES-19-0000-763A).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData are not available for sharing. To foster future replications, we provide code snippets for model construction in an online repository. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.459978