RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Fall prevention is a safety goal in many hospitals. The performance of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) in older inpatients is largely unknown. We aimed to assess the JHFRAT performance in a large sample of Dutch older inpatients, including its trend over time. METHODS: We used an Electronic Health Records (EHR) dataset with hospitalized patients (≥ 70), admitted for ≥ 24 h between 2016 and 2021. Inpatient falls were extracted from structured and free-text data. We assessed the association between JHFRAT and falls using logistic regression. For test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Discrimination was measured by the AUC. For calibration, we plotted the predicted fall probability with the actual probability of falls. For time-related effects, we calculated the AUC per 6 months (using data of patients admitted during the 6 months' time interval) and plotted these different AUC values over time. Furthermore, we compared the model (JHFRAT and falls) with and without adjusting for seasonal influenza, COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter periods. RESULTS: Data included 17,263 admissions with at least 1 JHFRAT measurement, a median age of 76 and a percentage female of 47%. The in-hospital fall prevalence was 2.5%. JHFRAT [OR = 1.11 (1.03-1.20)] and its subcategories were significantly associated with falls. For medium/high risk of falls (JHFRAT > 5), sensitivity was 73%, specificity 51%, PPV 4% and NPV 99%. The overall AUC was 0.67, varying over time between 0.62 and 0.71 (for 6 months' time intervals). Seasonal influenza did affect the association between JHFRAT and falls. COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter did not affect the association. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show an association between JHFRAT and falls, a low discrimination by JHFRAT for older inpatients and over-prediction in the calibration. Improvements in the fall-risk assessment are warranted to improve efficiency.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To assess, validate and compare the predictive performance of models for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) over two different waves of infections. Our models were built with high-granular Electronic Health Records (EHR) data versus less-granular registry data. METHODS: Observational study of all COVID-19 patients admitted to 19 Dutch ICUs participating in both the national quality registry National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) and the EHR-based Dutch Data Warehouse (hereafter EHR). Multiple models were developed on data from the first 24 h of ICU admissions from February to June 2020 (first COVID-19 wave) and validated on prospective patients admitted to the same ICUs between July and December 2020 (second COVID-19 wave). We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and the degree of relatedness between development and validation population. Coefficients were used to identify relevant risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 1533 patients from the EHR and 1563 from the registry were included. With high granular EHR data, the average AUROC was 0.69 (standard deviation of 0.05) for the internal validation, and the AUROC was 0.75 for the temporal validation. The registry model achieved an average AUROC of 0.76 (standard deviation of 0.05) in the internal validation and 0.77 in the temporal validation. In the EHR data, age, and respiratory-system related variables were the most important risk factors identified. In the NICE registry data, age and chronic respiratory insufficiency were the most important risk factors. CONCLUSION: In our study, prognostic models built on less-granular but readily-available registry data had similar performance to models built on high-granular EHR data and showed similar transportability to a prospective COVID-19 population. Future research is needed to verify whether this finding can be confirmed for upcoming waves.