Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 46, Issue 5 , Pages 445-455, November 2005

Classification of Emergency Department Chief Complaints Into 7 Syndromes: A Retrospective Analysis of 527,228 Patients

  • Wendy W. Chapman, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for reprints: Wendy W. Chapman, PhD, Center for Biomedical Informatics, Suite 8084 Forbes Tower, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; 412-647-7113, fax 412-647-7190
  • ,
  • John N. Dowling, MD, MS
  • ,
  • Michael M. Wagner, MD, PhD

From the Real-time Outbreak and Disease Surveillance Laboratory, Center for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Received 25 August 2004; received in revised form 4 November 2004 and 4 March 2005; accepted 14 April 2005. published online 18 July 2005.

Study objective

Electronic surveillance systems often monitor triage chief complaints in hopes of detecting an outbreak earlier than can be accomplished with traditional reporting methods. We measured the accuracy of a Bayesian chief complaint classifier called CoCo that assigns patients 1 of 7 syndromic categories (respiratory, botulinic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, rash, constitutional, or hemorrhagic) based on free-text triage chief complaints.

Methods

We compared CoCo's classifications with criterion syndromic classification based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnoses. We assigned the criterion classification to a patient based on whether the patient's primary diagnosis was a member of a set of ICD-9 codes associated with CoCo's 7 syndromes. We tested CoCo's performance on a set of 527,228 chief complaints from patients registered at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center emergency department (ED) between 1990 and 2003. We performed a sensitivity analysis by varying the ICD-9 codes in the criterion standard. We also tested CoCo on chief complaints from EDs in a second location (Utah).

Results

Approximately 16% (85,569/527,228) of the patients were classified according to the criterion standard into 1 of the 7 syndromes. CoCo's classification performance (number of cases by criterion standard, sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)], and specificity [95% CI]) was respiratory (34,916, 63.1 [62.6 to 63.6], 94.3 [94.3 to 94.4]); botulinic (1,961, 30.1 [28.2 to 32.2], 99.3 [99.3 to 99.3]); gastrointestinal (20,431, 69.0 [68.4 to 69.6], 95.6 [95.6 to 95.7]); neurologic (7,393, 67.6 [66.6 to 68.7], 92.7 [92.6 to 92.8]); rash (2,232, 46.8 [44.8 to 48.9], 99.3 [99.3 to 99.3]); constitutional (10,603, 45.8 [44.9 to 46.8], 96.6 [96.6 to 96.7]); and hemorrhagic (8,033, 75.2 [74.3 to 76.2], 98.5 [98.4 to 98.5]). The sensitivity analysis showed that the results were not affected by the choice of ICD-9 codes in the criterion standard. Classification accuracy did not differ on chief complaints from the second location.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that, for most syndromes, our chief complaint classification system can identify about half of the patients with relevant syndromic presentations, with specificities higher than 90% and positive predictive values ranging from 12% to 44%.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: Jonathan M. Teich, MD, PhDAuthor contributions: WWC, JND, and MMW conceived and designed the study. MMW obtained research funding. JND was the medical consultant who designed the criterion standard and performed the error analysis. WWC collected and analyzed the data. WWC performed the statistical analysis of the data with input from JND and MMW. WWC drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. WWC takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

PII: S0196-0644(05)00464-6

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.04.012

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 46, Issue 5 , Pages 445-455, November 2005