IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237937.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Man vs. machine: Predicting hospital bed demand from an emergency department

Author

Listed:
  • Filipe Rissieri Lucini
  • Mateus Augusto dos Reis
  • Giovani José Caetano da Silveira
  • Flavio Sanson Fogliatto
  • Michel José Anzanello
  • Giordanna Guerra Andrioli
  • Rafael Nicolaidis
  • Rafael Coimbra Ferreira Beltrame
  • Jeruza Lavanholi Neyeloff
  • Beatriz D'Agord Schaan

Abstract

Background: The recent literature reports promising results from using intelligent systems to support decision making in healthcare operations. Using these systems may lead to improved diagnostic and treatment protocols and to predict hospital bed demand. Predicting hospital bed demand in emergency department (ED) attendances could help resource allocation and reduce pressure on busy hospitals. However, there is still limited knowledge on whether intelligent systems can operate as fully autonomous, user-independent systems. Objective: Compare the performance of a computer-based algorithm and humans in predicting hospital bed demand (admissions and discharges) based on the initial SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) records of the ED. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the performance of humans and machines in predicting hospital bed demand from an ED. It considered electronic medical records (EMR) of 9030 patients (230 used as a testing set, and hence evaluated both by humans and by an algorithm, and 8800 used as a training set exclusively by the algorithm) who visited the ED of a tertiary care and teaching public hospital located in Porto Alegre, Brazil between January and December 2014. The machine role was played by Support Vector Machine Classifier and the human prediction was performed by four ED physicians. Predictions were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: All graders achieved similar accuracies. The accuracy by AUROC for the testing set was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.77–0.87], 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75–0.85), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71–0.81) for novice physicians, machine, experienced physicians, respectively. Processing time per test EMR was 0.00812±0.0009 seconds. In contrast, novice physicians took on average 156.80 seconds per test EMR, while experienced physicians took on average 56.40 seconds per test EMR. Conclusions: Our data indicated that the system could predict patient admission or discharge states with 80% accuracy, which was similar the performance of novice and experienced physicians. These results suggested that the algorithm could operate as an autonomous and independent system to complete this task.

Suggested Citation

  • Filipe Rissieri Lucini & Mateus Augusto dos Reis & Giovani José Caetano da Silveira & Flavio Sanson Fogliatto & Michel José Anzanello & Giordanna Guerra Andrioli & Rafael Nicolaidis & Rafael Coimbra F, 2020. "Man vs. machine: Predicting hospital bed demand from an emergency department," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-11, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237937
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237937
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237937
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237937&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237937?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0237937. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.