External Validation of a Widely Implemented Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model in Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: The Epic Sepsis Model (ESM), a proprietary sepsis prediction model, is implemented at hundreds of US hospitals. The ESM's ability to identify patients with sepsis has not been adequately evaluated despite widespread use. Objective: To externally validate the ESM in the prediction of sepsis and evaluate its potential clinical value compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among 27 697 patients aged 18 years or older admitted to Michigan Medicine, the academic health system of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, with 38 455 hospitalizations between December 6, 2018, and October 20, 2019. Exposure: The ESM score, calculated every 15 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sepsis, as defined by a composite of (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance criteria and (2) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnostic codes accompanied by 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and 1 organ dysfunction criterion within 6 hours of one another. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at the hospitalization level and with prediction horizons of 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Model calibration was evaluated with calibration plots. The potential clinical benefit associated with the ESM was assessed by evaluating the added benefit of the ESM score compared with contemporary clinical practice (based on timely administration of antibiotics). Alert fatigue was evaluated by comparing the clinical value of different alerting strategies. Results: We identified 27 697 patients who had 38 455 hospitalizations (21 904 women [57%]; median age, 56 years [interquartile range, 35-69 years]) meeting inclusion criteria, of whom sepsis occurred in 2552 (7%). The ESM had a hospitalization-level area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.62-0.64). The ESM identified 183 of 2552 patients with sepsis (7%) who did not receive timely administration of antibiotics, highlighting the low sensitivity of the ESM in comparison with contemporary clinical practice. The ESM also did not identify 1709 patients with sepsis (67%) despite generating alerts for an ESM score of 6 or higher for 6971 of all 38 455 hospitalized patients (18%), thus creating a large burden of alert fatigue. Conclusions and Relevance: This external validation cohort study suggests that the ESM has poor discrimination and calibration in predicting the onset of sepsis. The widespread adoption of the ESM despite its poor performance raises fundamental concerns about sepsis management on a national level.

Evaluating a Widely Implemented Proprietary Deterioration Index Model among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

Rationale: The Epic Deterioration Index (EDI) is a proprietary prediction model implemented in over 100 U.S. hospitals that was widely used to support medical decision-making during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The EDI has not been independently evaluated, and other proprietary models have been shown to be biased against vulnerable populations. Objectives: To independently evaluate the EDI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 overall and in disproportionately affected subgroups. Methods: We studied adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to units other than the intensive care unit at a large academic medical center from March 9 through May 20, 2020. We used the EDI, calculated at 15-minute intervals, to predict a composite outcome of intensive care unit-level care, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death. In a subset of patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours, we also evaluated the ability of the EDI to identify patients at low risk of experiencing this composite outcome during their remaining hospitalization. Results: Among 392 COVID-19 hospitalizations meeting inclusion criteria, 103 (26%) met the composite outcome. The median age of the cohort was 64 (interquartile range, 53-75) with 168 (43%) Black patients and 169 (43%) women. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of the EDI was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.84). EDI predictions did not differ by race or sex. When exploring clinically relevant thresholds of the EDI, we found patients who met or exceeded an EDI of 68.8 made up 14% of the study cohort and had a 74% probability of experiencing the composite outcome during their hospitalization with a sensitivity of 39% and a median lead time of 24 hours from when this threshold was first exceeded. Among the 286 patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours who had not experienced the composite outcome, 14 (13%) never exceeded an EDI of 37.9, with a negative predictive value of 90% and a sensitivity above this threshold of 91%. Conclusions: We found the EDI identifies small subsets of high-risk and low-risk patients with COVID-19 with good discrimination, although its clinical use as an early warning system is limited by low sensitivity. These findings highlight the importance of independent evaluation of proprietary models before widespread operational use among patients with COVID-19.

Evaluating a Widely Implemented Proprietary Deterioration Index Model Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The Epic Deterioration Index (EDI) is a proprietary prediction model implemented in over 100 U.S. hospitals that was widely used to support medical decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The EDI has not been independently evaluated, and other proprietary models have been shown to be biased against vulnerable populations. METHODS: We studied adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to non-ICU care at a large academic medical center from March 9 through May 20, 2020. We used the EDI, calculated at 15-minute intervals, to predict a composite outcome of ICU-level care, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death. In a subset of patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours, we also evaluated the ability of the EDI to identify patients at low risk of experiencing this composite outcome during their remaining hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 392 COVID-19 hospitalizations meeting inclusion criteria, 103 (26%) met the composite outcome. Median age of the cohort was 64 (IQR 53-75) with 168 (43%) African Americans and 169 (43%) women. Area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) of the EDI was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.84). EDI predictions did not differ by race or sex. When exploring clinically-relevant thresholds of the EDI, we found patients who met or exceeded an EDI of 68.8 made up 14% of the study cohort and had a 74% probability of experiencing the composite outcome during their hospitalization with a median lead time of 24 hours from when this threshold was first exceeded. Among the 286 patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours who had not experienced the composite outcome, 14 (13%) never exceeded an EDI of 37.9, with a negative predictive value of 90% and a sensitivity above this threshold of 91%. CONCLUSION: We found the EDI identifies small subsets of high- and low-risk COVID-19 patients with fair discrimination. We did not find evidence of bias by race or sex. These findings highlight the importance of independent evaluation of proprietary models before widespread operational use among COVID-19 patients.