Transportability and Implementation Challenges of Early Warning Scores for Septic Shock in the ICU: A Perspective on the TREWScore

The increased use of electronic health records (EHRs) has improved the availability of routine care data for medical research. Combined with machine learning techniques this has spurred the development of early warning scores (EWSs) in hospitals worldwide. EWSs are commonly used in the hospital where they have been developed, yet few have been transported to external settings and/or internationally. In this perspective, we describe our experiences in implementing the TREWScore, a septic shock EWS, and the transportability challenges regarding domain, predictors, and clinical outcome we faced. We used data of 53,330 ICU stays from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) and 18,013 ICU stays from the University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht, including 17,023 (31.9%) and 2,557 (14.2%) cases of sepsis, respectively. The MIMIC-III and UMC populations differed significantly regarding the length of stay (6.9 vs. 9.0 days) and hospital mortality (11.6% vs. 13.6%). We mapped all 54 TREWScore predictors to the UMC database: 31 were readily available, seven required unit conversion, 14 had to be engineered, one predictor required text mining, and one predictor could not be mapped. Lastly, we classified sepsis cases for septic shock using the sepsis-2 criteria. Septic shock populations (UMC 31.3% and MIMIC-III 23.3%) and time to shock events showed significant differences between the two cohorts. In conclusion, we identified challenges to transportability and implementation regarding domain, predictors, and clinical outcome when transporting EWS between hospitals across two continents. These challenges need to be systematically addressed to improve model transportability between centers and unlock the potential clinical utility of EWS.

[1]  J. Donnelly,et al.  External Validation of a Widely Implemented Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model in Hospitalized Patients. , 2021, JAMA internal medicine.

[2]  Yong Hu,et al.  Cross-site transportability of an explainable artificial intelligence model for acute kidney injury prediction , 2020, Nature Communications.

[3]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI Extension , 2020, BMJ.

[4]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI Extension , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[5]  Mark Hoogendoorn,et al.  Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[6]  Jonathan A. C. Sterne,et al.  Use of machine learning to analyse routinely collected intensive care unit data: a systematic review , 2019, Critical Care.

[7]  R. Ranganath,et al.  A Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Machine Learning for Health. , 2018, AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science.

[8]  Peter Szolovits,et al.  MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database , 2016, Scientific Data.

[9]  Kenneth D. Mandl,et al.  SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records , 2016, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[10]  P. Pronovost,et al.  A targeted real-time early warning score (TREWScore) for septic shock , 2015, Science Translational Medicine.

[11]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[12]  G. Collins,et al.  Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement , 2015, BMC medicine.

[13]  H. Brisse,et al.  Results of a multicenter prospective study on the postoperative treatment of unilateral retinoblastoma after primary enucleation. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[15]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. , 2010, Journal of statistical software.

[16]  H. Wunsch,et al.  Variation in critical care services across North America and Western Europe* , 2008, Critical care medicine.

[17]  Jeffrey M. Hausdorff,et al.  Physionet: Components of a New Research Resource for Complex Physiologic Signals". Circu-lation Vol , 2000 .

[18]  C. Sprung,et al.  Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on "sepsis-related problems" of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. , 1998, Critical care medicine.

[19]  E. Draper,et al.  APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system , 1985, Critical care medicine.

[20]  Kevin Donnelly,et al.  SNOMED-CT: The advanced terminology and coding system for eHealth. , 2006, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[21]  S. Lemeshow,et al.  A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. , 1993, JAMA.