Identifying Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department: Multi-System Electronic Health Record-Based Computable Phenotype Derivation and Validation Study.
algorithms
electronic health records
emergency medicine
opioid-related disorders
phenotype
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2019
31 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
08
08
2019
accepted:
01
10
2019
revised:
27
09
2019
entrez:
2
11
2019
pubmed:
2
11
2019
medline:
2
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Deploying accurate computable phenotypes in pragmatic trials requires a trade-off between precise and clinically sensical variable selection. In particular, evaluating the medical encounter to assess a pattern leading to clinically significant impairment or distress indicative of disease is a difficult modeling challenge for the emergency department. This study aimed to derive and validate an electronic health record-based computable phenotype to identify emergency department patients with opioid use disorder using physician chart review as a reference standard. A two-algorithm computable phenotype was developed and evaluated using structured clinical data across 13 emergency departments in two large health care systems. Algorithm 1 combined clinician and billing codes. Algorithm 2 used chief complaint structured data suggestive of opioid use disorder. To evaluate the algorithms in both internal and external validation phases, two emergency medicine physicians, with a third acting as adjudicator, reviewed a pragmatic sample of 231 charts: 125 internal validation (75 positive and 50 negative), 106 external validation (56 positive and 50 negative). Cohen kappa, measuring agreement between reviewers, for the internal and external validation cohorts was 0.95 and 0.93, respectively. In the internal validation phase, Algorithm 1 had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.863-0.995) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.893-0.999), and Algorithm 2 had a PPV of 0.8 (95% CI 0.593-0.932) and an NPV of 1.0 (one-sided 97.5% CI 0.863-1). In the external validation phase, the phenotype had a PPV of 0.95 (95% CI 0.851-0.989) and an NPV of 0.92 (95% CI 0.807-0.978). This phenotype detected emergency department patients with opioid use disorder with high predictive values and reliability. Its algorithms were transportable across health care systems and have potential value for both clinical and research purposes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Deploying accurate computable phenotypes in pragmatic trials requires a trade-off between precise and clinically sensical variable selection. In particular, evaluating the medical encounter to assess a pattern leading to clinically significant impairment or distress indicative of disease is a difficult modeling challenge for the emergency department.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to derive and validate an electronic health record-based computable phenotype to identify emergency department patients with opioid use disorder using physician chart review as a reference standard.
METHODS
METHODS
A two-algorithm computable phenotype was developed and evaluated using structured clinical data across 13 emergency departments in two large health care systems. Algorithm 1 combined clinician and billing codes. Algorithm 2 used chief complaint structured data suggestive of opioid use disorder. To evaluate the algorithms in both internal and external validation phases, two emergency medicine physicians, with a third acting as adjudicator, reviewed a pragmatic sample of 231 charts: 125 internal validation (75 positive and 50 negative), 106 external validation (56 positive and 50 negative).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Cohen kappa, measuring agreement between reviewers, for the internal and external validation cohorts was 0.95 and 0.93, respectively. In the internal validation phase, Algorithm 1 had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.863-0.995) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.893-0.999), and Algorithm 2 had a PPV of 0.8 (95% CI 0.593-0.932) and an NPV of 1.0 (one-sided 97.5% CI 0.863-1). In the external validation phase, the phenotype had a PPV of 0.95 (95% CI 0.851-0.989) and an NPV of 0.92 (95% CI 0.807-0.978).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This phenotype detected emergency department patients with opioid use disorder with high predictive values and reliability. Its algorithms were transportable across health care systems and have potential value for both clinical and research purposes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31674913
pii: v7i4e15794
doi: 10.2196/15794
pmc: PMC6913746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e15794Subventions
Organisme : NLM NIH HHS
ID : T15 LM007056
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : UG3 DA047003
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : UH3 DA047003
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©David Chartash, Hyung Paek, James D Dziura, Bill K Ross, Daniel P Nogee, Eric Boccio, Cory Hines, Aaron M Schott, Molly M Jeffery, Mehul D Patel, Timothy F Platts-Mills, Osama Ahmed, Cynthia Brandt, Katherine Couturier, Edward Melnick. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (http://medinform.jmir.org), 31.10.2019.
Références
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Mar 30;67(12):349-358
pubmed: 29596405
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Oct;51:280-6
pubmed: 24960203
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Dec;20(e2):e226-31
pubmed: 23956018
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Mar 09;67(9):279-285
pubmed: 29518069
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jul;33(7):1163-70
pubmed: 25006142
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Dec;84(12):1057-64
pubmed: 26456569
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Aug 7;169(3):137-145
pubmed: 29913516
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:1224
pubmed: 23920998
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 06;(2):CD002207
pubmed: 24500948
Acad Emerg Med. 2018 May;25(5):601-604
pubmed: 29266577
Pain. 2015 Jul;156(7):1208-14
pubmed: 25760471
BMJ. 2015 May 08;350:h2147
pubmed: 25956159
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Feb 1;2(2):e187621
pubmed: 30707224
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Mar-Apr;21(2):221-30
pubmed: 24201027
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;72(4):420-431
pubmed: 29880438
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Feb 1;25(2):150-157
pubmed: 28645207
JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1636-44
pubmed: 25919527
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;24(5):996-1001
pubmed: 28340241
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Nov 1;25(11):1540-1546
pubmed: 30124903
Lancet. 2003 Feb 22;361(9358):662-8
pubmed: 12606177