IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External validation of the PAR-Risk Score to assess potentially avoidable hospital readmission risk in internal medicine patients

Author

Listed:
  • Lukas Higi
  • Angela Lisibach
  • Patrick E Beeler
  • Monika Lutters
  • Anne-Laure Blanc
  • Andrea M Burden
  • Dominik Stämpfli

Abstract

Background: Readmission prediction models have been developed and validated for targeted in-hospital preventive interventions. We aimed to externally validate the Potentially Avoidable Readmission-Risk Score (PAR-Risk Score), a 12-items prediction model for internal medicine patients with a convenient scoring system, for our local patient cohort. Methods: A cohort study using electronic health record data from the internal medicine ward of a Swiss tertiary teaching hospital was conducted. The individual PAR-Risk Score values were calculated for each patient. Univariable logistic regression was used to predict potentially avoidable readmissions (PARs), as identified by the SQLape algorithm. For additional analyses, patients were stratified into low, medium, and high risk according to tertiles based on the PAR-Risk Score. Statistical associations between predictor variables and PAR as outcome were assessed using both univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Results: The final dataset consisted of 5,985 patients. Of these, 340 patients (5.7%) experienced a PAR. The overall PAR-Risk Score showed rather poor discriminatory power (C statistic 0.605, 95%-CI 0.575–0.635). When using stratified groups (low, medium, high), patients in the high-risk group were at statistically significant higher odds (OR 2.63, 95%-CI 1.33–5.18) of being readmitted within 30 days compared to low risk patients. Multivariable logistic regression identified previous admission within six months, anaemia, heart failure, and opioids to be significantly associated with PAR in this patient cohort. Conclusion: This external validation showed a limited overall performance of the PAR-Risk Score, although higher scores were associated with an increased risk for PAR and patients in the high-risk group were at significantly higher odds of being readmitted within 30 days. This study highlights the importance of externally validating prediction models.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukas Higi & Angela Lisibach & Patrick E Beeler & Monika Lutters & Anne-Laure Blanc & Andrea M Burden & Dominik Stämpfli, 2021. "External validation of the PAR-Risk Score to assess potentially avoidable hospital readmission risk in internal medicine patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259864
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259864
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259864&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259864?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne-Laure Blanc & Thierry Fumeaux & Jérôme Stirnemann & Elise Dupuis Lozeron & Aimad Ourhamoune & Jules Desmeules & Pierre Chopard & Arnaud Perrier & Nicolas Schaad & Pascal Bonnabry, 2019. "Development of a predictive score for potentially avoidable hospital readmissions for general internal medicine patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Karel G M Moons & Joris A H de Groot & Walter Bouwmeester & Yvonne Vergouwe & Susan Mallett & Douglas G Altman & Johannes B Reitsma & Gary S Collins, 2014. "Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aljoscha Benjamin Hwang & Guido Schuepfer & Mario Pietrini & Stefan Boes, 2021. "External validation of EPIC’s Risk of Unplanned Readmission model, the LACE+ index and SQLape as predictors of unplanned hospital readmissions: A monocentric, retrospective, diagnostic cohort study in," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-33, November.
    2. Jiaxin Li & Zijun Zhou & Jianyu Dong & Ying Fu & Yuan Li & Ze Luan & Xin Peng, 2021. "Predicting breast cancer 5-year survival using machine learning: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Fazel, Seena & Burghart, Matthias & Fanshawe, Thomas & Gil, Sharon Danielle & Monahan, John & Yu, Rongqin, 2022. "The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing: Systematic review of validation studies," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Fisaha Haile Tesfay & Kathryn Backholer & Christina Zorbas & Steven J. Bowe & Laura Alston & Catherine M. Bennett, 2022. "The Magnitude of NCD Risk Factors in Ethiopia: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Evidence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Shamil D. Cooray & Lihini A. Wijeyaratne & Georgia Soldatos & John Allotey & Jacqueline A. Boyle & Helena J. Teede, 2020. "The Unrealised Potential for Predicting Pregnancy Complications in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Helder Novais Bastos & Nuno S Osório & António Gil Castro & Angélica Ramos & Teresa Carvalho & Leonor Meira & David Araújo & Leonor Almeida & Rita Boaventura & Patrícia Fragata & Catarina Chaves & Pat, 2016. "A Prediction Rule to Stratify Mortality Risk of Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Antonio Palazón-Bru & María José Prieto-Castelló & David Manuel Folgado-de la Rosa & Ana Macanás-Martínez & Emma Mares-García & María de los Ángeles Carbonell-Torregrosa & Vicente Francisco Gil-Guillé, 2020. "Development, and Internal, and External Validation of a Scoring System to Predict 30-Day Mortality after Having a Traffic Accident Traveling by Private Car or Van: An Analysis of 164,790 Subjects and ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Paulien Van Acker & Wim Van Biesen & Evi V Nagler & Muguet Koobasi & Nic Veys & Jill Vanmassenhove, 2021. "Risk prediction models for acute kidney injury in adults: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Sara J Baart & Veerle Dam & Luuk J J Scheres & Johanna A A G Damen & René Spijker & Ewoud Schuit & Thomas P A Debray & Bart C J M Fauser & Eric Boersma & Karel G M Moons & Yvonne T van der Schouw & on, 2019. "Cardiovascular risk prediction models for women in the general population: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Hans Van Remoortel & Hans Scheers & Emmy De Buck & Winne Haenen & Philippe Vandekerckhove, 2020. "Prediction modelling studies for medical usage rates in mass gatherings: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.
    11. Daniel J Stubbs & Lisa A Grimes & Ari Ercole, 2020. "Performance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the prediction of post-operative complications in non cardiopulmonary surgery: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, February.
    12. Vieira, Bruno Hebling & Pamplona, Gustavo Santo Pedro & Fachinello, Karim & Silva, Alice Kamensek & Foss, Maria Paula & Salmon, Carlos Ernesto Garrido, 2022. "On the prediction of human intelligence from neuroimaging: A systematic review of methods and reporting," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    13. Magdalena Lagerlund & Juan Merlo & Raquel Pérez Vicente & Sophia Zackrisson, 2015. "Does the Neighborhood Area of Residence Influence Non-Attendance in an Urban Mammography Screening Program? A Multilevel Study in a Swedish City," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    14. Wei Zhang & Yun Tang & Huan Liu & Li ping Yuan & Chu chu Wang & Shu fan Chen & Jin Huang & Xin yuan Xiao, 2021. "Risk prediction models for intensive care unit-acquired weakness in intensive care unit patients: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-14, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259864. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.