↓ Skip to main content

A stochastic model of acute-care decisions based on patient and provider heterogeneity

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Management Science, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
A stochastic model of acute-care decisions based on patient and provider heterogeneity
Published in
Health Care Management Science, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10729-015-9347-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muge Capan, Julie S. Ivy, James R. Wilson, Jeanne M. Huddleston

Abstract

The primary cause of preventable death in many hospitals is the failure to recognize and/or rescue patients from acute physiologic deterioration (APD). APD affects all hospitalized patients, potentially causing cardiac arrest and death. Identifying APD is difficult, and response timing is critical - delays in response represent a significant and modifiable patient safety issue. Hospitals have instituted rapid response systems or teams (RRT) to provide timely critical care for APD, with thresholds that trigger the involvement of critical care expertise. The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) was developed to define these thresholds. However, current triggers are inconsistent and ignore patient-specific factors. Further, acute care is delivered by providers with different clinical experience, resulting in quality-of-care variation. This article documents a semi-Markov decision process model of APD that incorporates patient and provider heterogeneity. The model allows for stochastically changing health states, while determining patient subpopulation-specific RRT-activation thresholds. The objective function minimizes the total time associated with patient deterioration and stabilization; and the relative values of nursing and RRT times can be modified. A case study from January 2011 to December 2012 identified six subpopulations. RRT activation was optimal for patients in "slightly concerning" health states (NEWS > 0) for all subpopulations, except surgical patients with low risk of deterioration for whom RRT was activated in "concerning" states (NEWS > 4). Clustering methods identified provider clusters considering RRT-activation preferences and estimation of stabilization-related resource needs. Providers with conservative resource estimates preferred waiting over activating RRT. This study provides simple practical rules for personalized acute care delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Engineering 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Management Science
#206
of 285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,717
of 283,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Management Science
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.