A quality improvement study on how a simulation model can help decision making on organization of ICU wards.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity management is essential to provide high-quality healthcare for critically ill patients. Yet, consensus on the most favorable ICU design is lacking, especially whether ICUs should deliver dedicated or non-dedicated care. The decision for dedicated or non-dedicated ICU design considers a trade-off in the degree of specialization for individual patient care and efficient use of resources for society. We aim to share insights of a model simulating capacity effects for different ICU designs. Upon request, this simulation model is available for other ICUs. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed and used, to study the hypothetical performance of a large University Hospital ICU on occupancy, rejection, and rescheduling rates for a dedicated and non-dedicated ICU design in four different scenarios. These scenarios either simulate the base-case situation of the local ICU, varying bed capacity levels, potential effects of reduced length of stay for a dedicated design and unexpected increased inflow of unplanned patients. RESULTS: The simulation model provided insights to foresee effects of capacity choices that should be made. The non-dedicated ICU design outperformed the dedicated ICU design in terms of efficient use of scarce resources. CONCLUSIONS: The choice to use dedicated ICUs does not only affect the clinical outcome, but also rejection- rescheduling and occupancy rates. Our analysis of a large university hospital demonstrates how such a model can support decision making on ICU design, in conjunction with other operation characteristics such as staffing and quality management.

Identifying Genetic Mutation Status in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Using Radiomics-Based Machine-Learning Models.

For patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM), the genetic mutation status is important in treatment selection and prognostication for survival outcomes. This study aims to investigate the relationship between radiomics imaging features and the genetic mutation status (KRAS mutation versus no mutation) in a large multicenter dataset of patients with CRLM and validate these findings in an external dataset. Patients with initially unresectable CRLM treated with systemic therapy of the randomized controlled CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. All CRLM were semi-automatically segmented in pre-treatment CT scans and radiomics features were calculated from these segmentations. Additionally, data from the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) were used for external validation. A total of 255 patients from the CAIRO5 trial were included. Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Gradient Boosting + LightGBM, and Ensemble machine-learning classifiers showed AUC scores of 0.77 (95%CI 0.62-0.92), 0.77 (95%CI 0.64-0.90), 0.72 (95%CI 0.57-0.87), and 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.95) in the internal test set. Validation of the models on the external dataset with 129 patients resulted in AUC scores of 0.47-0.56. Machine-learning models incorporating CT imaging features could identify the genetic mutation status in patients with CRLM with a good accuracy in the internal test set. However, in the external validation set, the models performed poorly. External validation of machine-learning models is crucial for the assessment of clinical applicability and should be mandatory in all future studies in the field of radiomics.

Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review.

The aim of this scoping review is to summarize approaches and outcomes of clinical validation studies of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support (part of) a medication review. A literature search was conducted in Embase and Medline. In total, 30 articles validating a CDSS were ultimately included. Most of the studies focused on detection of adverse drug events, potentially inappropriate medications and drug-related problems. We categorized the included articles in three groups: studies subjectively reviewing the clinical relevance of CDSS's output (21/30 studies) resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) for clinical relevance of 4-80%; studies determining the relationship between alerts and actual events (10/30 studies) resulting in a PPV for actual events of 5-80%; and studies comparing output of CDSSs to chart/medication reviews in the whole study population (10/30 studies) resulting in a sensitivity of 28-85% and specificity of 42-75%. We found heterogeneity in the methods used and in the outcome measures. The validation studies did not report the use of a published CDSS validation strategy. To improve the effectiveness and uptake of CDSSs supporting a medication review, future research would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive validation strategy.