Enhanced Screening and Research Data Collection via Automated EHR Data Capture and Early Identification of Sepsis

Validation of an ICD-Based Algorithm to Identify Sepsis: A Retrospective Study

Background

Sepsis surveillance was important for resources allocation, prevention, and development of health policy.

Objective

The aim of the study was to validate a modified International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 based algorithm for identifying hospitalized patients with sepsis.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a prospective, single-center cohort of adult patients who were consecutively admitted to one medical ICU ward and ten non-ICU wards with suspected or confirmed infections during a 6-month period. A modified ICD-10 based algorithm was validated against a reference standard of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score based on Sepsis-3. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were calculated for modified ICD-10 criteria, eSOFA criteria, Martin's criteria, and Angus's criteria.

Results

Of the 547 patients in the cohort, 332 (61%) patients met Sepsis-3 criteria and 274 (50%) met modified ICD-10 criteria. In the ICU setting, modified ICD-10 criteria had SE (84.47%), SP (88.57%), PPV (95.60), and NPV (65.96). In non-ICU settings, modified ICD-10 had SE (64.19%), SP (80.00%), PPV (80.33), and NPV (63.72). In the whole cohort, the AUROCs of modified ICD-10 criteria, eSOFA, Angus's criteria, and Martin's criteria were 0.76, 0.75, 0.62, and 0.62, respectively.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that modified ICD-10 criteria had higher validity compared with Angus's criteria and Martin's criteria. Validity of the modified ICD-10 criteria was similar to eSOFA criteria. Modified ICD-10 algorithm can be used to provide an accurate estimate of population-based sepsis burden of China.

Patient-reported outcomes via electronic health record portal versus telephone: a pragmatic randomized pilot trial of anxiety or depression symptoms in epilepsy

Objective

To close gaps between research and clinical practice, tools are needed for efficient pragmatic trial recruitment and patient-reported outcome collection. The objective was to assess feasibility and process measures for patient-reported outcome collection in a randomized trial comparing electronic health record (EHR) patient portal questionnaires to telephone interview among adults with epilepsy and anxiety or depression symptoms.

Materials and Methods

Recruitment for the randomized trial began at an epilepsy clinic visit, with EHR-embedded validated anxiety and depression instruments, followed by automated EHR-based research screening consent and eligibility assessment. Fully eligible individuals later completed telephone consent, enrollment, and randomization. Participants were randomized 1:1 to EHR portal versus telephone outcome assessment, and patient-reported and process outcomes were collected at 3 and 6 months, with primary outcome 6-month retention in EHR arm (feasibility target: ≥11 participants retained).

Results

Participants (N = 30) were 60% women, 77% White/non-Hispanic, with mean age 42.5 years. Among 15 individuals randomized to EHR portal, 10 (67%, CI 41.7%-84.8%) met the 6-month retention endpoint, versus 100% (CI 79.6%-100%) in the telephone group (P = 0.04). EHR outcome collection at 6 months required 11.8 min less research staff time per participant than telephone (5.9, CI 3.3-7.7 vs 17.7, CI 14.1-20.2). Subsequent telephone contact after unsuccessful EHR attempts enabled near complete data collection and still saved staff time.

Discussion

In this randomized study, EHR portal outcome assessment did not meet the retention feasibility target, but EHR method saved research staff time compared to telephone.

Conclusion

While EHR portal outcome assessment was not feasible, hybrid EHR/telephone method was feasible and saved staff time.