PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Meredith Harrison-Brown
AU  - Corey Scholes
AU  - Kam S. Sandhu
AU  - Milad Ebrahimi
AU  - Christopher Bell
AU  - Garry Kirwan
TI  - Applying models of care for total hip and knee arthroplasty: External validation of predictive models to identify extended stay prior to lower-limb arthroplasty
AID  - 10.1101/2020.08.24.20180653
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.08.24.20180653
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/31/2020.08.24.20180653.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/31/2020.08.24.20180653.full
AB  - Introduction/Aims Multiple screening tools exist for identifying patients at risk of extended stay following lower limb arthroplasty. Use of these models at other hospital sites requires verification of appropriate data coverage and evidence of validity in a new population. The aim of this study was to adapt and assess 1) data compatibility, 2) discrimination, and 3) calibration of three published models for identifying patients at risk of an extended (5+ day) stay, or those likely to stay for the target 3 or fewer days following lower limb arthroplasty.Methods Retrospective study, utilising a randomly selected (N=200 of a total 331 available in the electronic medical record) cohort of lower-limb Total Joint Arthroplasty (TJA) patients, to externally validate an adaptation of predictive tools and regression models published by three independent groups: Winemaker et al (2015)1, Oldmeadow et al (2003)2 and Gabriel et al (2018)3. Electronic medical records of a single, medium-sized public hospital were accessed to extract data required for the models and respective predictive tools, and model characteristics (included predictors, data coding, sample sizes) were modified according to the available data.Results The study cohort comprised 200 patients (60% female) at a median 70yrs of age (IQR 62-75). Approximately 58% received total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 42% underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). The two prediction tools and three regression models all required modifications due to data items being unavailable in the electronic records. A modification of the RAPT tool applied to 176 eligible patients resulted in sensitivity of 85.71% (95%CI 71.46-94.57) and poor specificity 32.09% (24.29-40.70), with 68% of short-stay patients classified in the high risk group. Adaptation of the second tool to 85 eligible patients resulted in unreliable estimates of sensitivity due to limited data. The three adapted regression models performed similarly well with regard to discrimination when used to predict patients staying for 5 days or longer (concordance index: Winemaker et al:, 0.79, n=198; Oldmeadow et al: 0.79, n=176), or those staying 3 days or less (Gabriel et al: 0.70, n=199). Estimates of calibration suggested the models were relatively well calibrated (spiegelhalter Z -0.01-0.29, p>0.05), although calibration plots indicated some variation remained unaccounted for, particularly with patients considered at ‘intermediate’ risk.Conclusion The three resulting regression models performed adequately in terms of discrimination and calibration for identification of patients at risk of an extended stay. However, comparison with published models was hampered by systemic issues with data compatibility. Further evaluation of such models in a specific hospital setting should incorporate improvements in data collection, and establish key thresholds for use in targeting resources to patients in need of greater support.Competing Interest StatementThe authors employed by EBM Analytics have been contracted by QEII Jubilee Hospital Orthopaedics for the purposes of data custodianship of a clinical outcomes registry, and assistance with running and documentation of this study. No other authors have any conflicts to disclose.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the QEII Jubilee Hospital Orthopaedic Research Fund. EBM Analytics was contracted by the senior authors to assist with planning and execution of this study, including data analysis and manuscript preparation.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:Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2019/QMS/57093)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).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.YesData may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.