Recalibration of the Pediatric Risk of Admission Score Using a Multi-Institutional Sample

James M. Chamberlain, Kantilal M. Patel, Murray M. Pollack, Anne Brayer, Charles G. Macias, Pamela Okada, Jeff E. Schunk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: Case-mix adjustment is a critical component of quality assessment and benchmarking. The Pediatric Risk of Admission (PRISA) score is composed of descriptive, physiologic, and diagnostic variables that provide a probability of hospital admission as an index of severity. The score was developed and validated in a single tertiary pediatric hospital emergency department (ED) after exclusion of children with minor injuries and illnesses. We provide a multi-institutional recalibration and validation of the PRISA score and test its performance in 4 additional EDs, including patients with minor injuries and illnesses. Methods: Masked, photocopied, randomly selected medical records of ED patients from 2000 were abstracted and were used to test the performance (discrimination and calibration) of the original PRISA score. This sample differed from the original PRISA sample by including 5 hospitals and including patients with minor injuries and minor illnesses. Independent variables included components of acute and chronic history, physiologic variables, and 3 ED therapies. The dependent variable was hospital admission. PRISA was then recalibrated as needed by using an 80% development sample and a 20% validation sample. Area under the curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to measure, respectively, discrimination and calibration of the PRISA score after recalibration. We then applied the recalibrated PRISA score to secondary outcomes to test construct validity. We reasoned that a valid measure of ED severity should also be associated with the secondary outcomes of mandatory admissions (admissions using ≥1 inpatient resources) and ICU admissions. Results: The recalibrated PRISA score performed well in all deciles of predicted probability of admission. The area under the curve was 0.81 and the calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow 10.658; df=8; P=.222) for the development sample, and the area under the curve was 0.785 with excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow 8.341; df=9; P=.500) for the validation sample. The overall development sample had 423.9 admissions predicted and 423 observed; the validation sample had 112.1 predicted and 110 observed. Conclusion: The PRISA score has been recalibrated and performs well in EDs of tertiary pediatric hospitals. Comparison with this benchmark may allow individual EDs to improve their performance and may provide insight into best practices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)461-468
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume43
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2004

Fingerprint

Pediatrics
Calibration
Hospital Emergency Service
Area Under Curve
Benchmarking
Pediatric Hospitals
Tertiary Care Centers
Wounds and Injuries
Hospital Medical Records Department
Risk Adjustment
Emergency Treatment
Hospital Departments
Practice Guidelines
Inpatients
History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Chamberlain, J. M., Patel, K. M., Pollack, M. M., Brayer, A., Macias, C. G., Okada, P., & Schunk, J. E. (2004). Recalibration of the Pediatric Risk of Admission Score Using a Multi-Institutional Sample. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 43(4), 461-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.08.001

Recalibration of the Pediatric Risk of Admission Score Using a Multi-Institutional Sample. / Chamberlain, James M.; Patel, Kantilal M.; Pollack, Murray M.; Brayer, Anne; Macias, Charles G.; Okada, Pamela; Schunk, Jeff E.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 4, 04.2004, p. 461-468.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chamberlain, James M. ; Patel, Kantilal M. ; Pollack, Murray M. ; Brayer, Anne ; Macias, Charles G. ; Okada, Pamela ; Schunk, Jeff E. / Recalibration of the Pediatric Risk of Admission Score Using a Multi-Institutional Sample. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004 ; Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 461-468.
@article{0a4cdcb23a0f4d46b4f51ca1c0ed7f34,
title = "Recalibration of the Pediatric Risk of Admission Score Using a Multi-Institutional Sample",
abstract = "Study objective: Case-mix adjustment is a critical component of quality assessment and benchmarking. The Pediatric Risk of Admission (PRISA) score is composed of descriptive, physiologic, and diagnostic variables that provide a probability of hospital admission as an index of severity. The score was developed and validated in a single tertiary pediatric hospital emergency department (ED) after exclusion of children with minor injuries and illnesses. We provide a multi-institutional recalibration and validation of the PRISA score and test its performance in 4 additional EDs, including patients with minor injuries and illnesses. Methods: Masked, photocopied, randomly selected medical records of ED patients from 2000 were abstracted and were used to test the performance (discrimination and calibration) of the original PRISA score. This sample differed from the original PRISA sample by including 5 hospitals and including patients with minor injuries and minor illnesses. Independent variables included components of acute and chronic history, physiologic variables, and 3 ED therapies. The dependent variable was hospital admission. PRISA was then recalibrated as needed by using an 80{\%} development sample and a 20{\%} validation sample. Area under the curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to measure, respectively, discrimination and calibration of the PRISA score after recalibration. We then applied the recalibrated PRISA score to secondary outcomes to test construct validity. We reasoned that a valid measure of ED severity should also be associated with the secondary outcomes of mandatory admissions (admissions using ≥1 inpatient resources) and ICU admissions. Results: The recalibrated PRISA score performed well in all deciles of predicted probability of admission. The area under the curve was 0.81 and the calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow 10.658; df=8; P=.222) for the development sample, and the area under the curve was 0.785 with excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow 8.341; df=9; P=.500) for the validation sample. The overall development sample had 423.9 admissions predicted and 423 observed; the validation sample had 112.1 predicted and 110 observed. Conclusion: The PRISA score has been recalibrated and performs well in EDs of tertiary pediatric hospitals. Comparison with this benchmark may allow individual EDs to improve their performance and may provide insight into best practices.",
author = "Chamberlain, {James M.} and Patel, {Kantilal M.} and Pollack, {Murray M.} and Anne Brayer and Macias, {Charles G.} and Pamela Okada and Schunk, {Jeff E.}",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.08.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "461--468",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recalibration of the Pediatric Risk of Admission Score Using a Multi-Institutional Sample

AU - Chamberlain, James M.

AU - Patel, Kantilal M.

AU - Pollack, Murray M.

AU - Brayer, Anne

AU - Macias, Charles G.

AU - Okada, Pamela

AU - Schunk, Jeff E.

PY - 2004/4

Y1 - 2004/4

N2 - Study objective: Case-mix adjustment is a critical component of quality assessment and benchmarking. The Pediatric Risk of Admission (PRISA) score is composed of descriptive, physiologic, and diagnostic variables that provide a probability of hospital admission as an index of severity. The score was developed and validated in a single tertiary pediatric hospital emergency department (ED) after exclusion of children with minor injuries and illnesses. We provide a multi-institutional recalibration and validation of the PRISA score and test its performance in 4 additional EDs, including patients with minor injuries and illnesses. Methods: Masked, photocopied, randomly selected medical records of ED patients from 2000 were abstracted and were used to test the performance (discrimination and calibration) of the original PRISA score. This sample differed from the original PRISA sample by including 5 hospitals and including patients with minor injuries and minor illnesses. Independent variables included components of acute and chronic history, physiologic variables, and 3 ED therapies. The dependent variable was hospital admission. PRISA was then recalibrated as needed by using an 80% development sample and a 20% validation sample. Area under the curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to measure, respectively, discrimination and calibration of the PRISA score after recalibration. We then applied the recalibrated PRISA score to secondary outcomes to test construct validity. We reasoned that a valid measure of ED severity should also be associated with the secondary outcomes of mandatory admissions (admissions using ≥1 inpatient resources) and ICU admissions. Results: The recalibrated PRISA score performed well in all deciles of predicted probability of admission. The area under the curve was 0.81 and the calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow 10.658; df=8; P=.222) for the development sample, and the area under the curve was 0.785 with excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow 8.341; df=9; P=.500) for the validation sample. The overall development sample had 423.9 admissions predicted and 423 observed; the validation sample had 112.1 predicted and 110 observed. Conclusion: The PRISA score has been recalibrated and performs well in EDs of tertiary pediatric hospitals. Comparison with this benchmark may allow individual EDs to improve their performance and may provide insight into best practices.

AB - Study objective: Case-mix adjustment is a critical component of quality assessment and benchmarking. The Pediatric Risk of Admission (PRISA) score is composed of descriptive, physiologic, and diagnostic variables that provide a probability of hospital admission as an index of severity. The score was developed and validated in a single tertiary pediatric hospital emergency department (ED) after exclusion of children with minor injuries and illnesses. We provide a multi-institutional recalibration and validation of the PRISA score and test its performance in 4 additional EDs, including patients with minor injuries and illnesses. Methods: Masked, photocopied, randomly selected medical records of ED patients from 2000 were abstracted and were used to test the performance (discrimination and calibration) of the original PRISA score. This sample differed from the original PRISA sample by including 5 hospitals and including patients with minor injuries and minor illnesses. Independent variables included components of acute and chronic history, physiologic variables, and 3 ED therapies. The dependent variable was hospital admission. PRISA was then recalibrated as needed by using an 80% development sample and a 20% validation sample. Area under the curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to measure, respectively, discrimination and calibration of the PRISA score after recalibration. We then applied the recalibrated PRISA score to secondary outcomes to test construct validity. We reasoned that a valid measure of ED severity should also be associated with the secondary outcomes of mandatory admissions (admissions using ≥1 inpatient resources) and ICU admissions. Results: The recalibrated PRISA score performed well in all deciles of predicted probability of admission. The area under the curve was 0.81 and the calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow 10.658; df=8; P=.222) for the development sample, and the area under the curve was 0.785 with excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow 8.341; df=9; P=.500) for the validation sample. The overall development sample had 423.9 admissions predicted and 423 observed; the validation sample had 112.1 predicted and 110 observed. Conclusion: The PRISA score has been recalibrated and performs well in EDs of tertiary pediatric hospitals. Comparison with this benchmark may allow individual EDs to improve their performance and may provide insight into best practices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1842424486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1842424486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.08.001

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 461

EP - 468

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 4

ER -