Hospital readmission after heart failure remains a frequent and clinically important event. Accurately identifying patients at high risk for readmission could enable targeted transitional care interventions and more efficient allocation of clinical resources. The authors frame improved prediction as a pathway to better postdischarge care planning.
The study aimed to improve prediction of readmission after heart failure hospitalization by using variables chosen through a modified Delphi process and leveraging inpatient Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data, with a focus on clinical notes.
This prognostic study developed competing risk survival models to predict readmission following heart failure hospitalization. Death was explicitly treated as a competing risk and was analyzed at the same time frames used for readmission. The investigators used survival modeling to account for competing outcomes rather than simple binary classification.
Patients were identified from all acute‑care facilities in Calgary, Alberta, which used the same EMR system throughout the study period. The cohort included adults aged 18 years or older who resided in Alberta and were admitted to a Calgary hospital with a most responsible diagnosis of heart failure. All corresponding admissions between 2011 and 2019 were included, totaling 15,160 admissions. Each patient had at least one year of available follow‑up.
Predictor variables were selected using a modified Delphi consensus process. Variables were extracted from the inpatient EMR; where appropriate this included elements available in structured fields and, importantly, information drawn from clinical notes using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. The report specifies use of various NLP approaches for note extraction but does not provide technical details of those methods in the abstract.
The primary outcome of interest was readmission within 30 days of discharge from the index heart failure hospitalization. Additional analyses considered readmission at 90 and 365 days. Death was treated as a competing risk and was analyzed for the same time intervals.
Models were evaluated using C‑statistics to quantify discrimination. The investigators also assessed standard diagnostic performance metrics including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The abstract reports the evaluation framework and metrics used but does not report numerical values for model discrimination or other performance measures.
The Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary provided ethical approval for the study. The authors stated that all relevant ethical guidelines were followed and that required patient/participant consent and institutional documentation were obtained and archived. Funding for the work was declared from Alberta Innovates and LevMax‑Health (grant #242505939). The authors declared no competing interests.
This manuscript is posted as a medRxiv preprint and has not undergone peer review. The authors and medRxiv note that the findings should not be used to guide clinical practice until the work is peer reviewed and validated.
The abstract does not provide model performance results or details about the specific NLP algorithms and model covariates beyond stating a modified Delphi selection process and that various NLP techniques were used. Because the preprint abstract omits numerical performance outcomes and methodological specifics, readers cannot assess model discrimination, calibration, or clinical utility from the abstract alone. Further detail available in the full report (or subsequent peer‑reviewed publication) will be needed to evaluate reproducibility, external validity, and potential implementation pathways.
The study describes the development of competing risk survival models for predicting readmission after heart failure hospitalization using Delphi‑selected variables extracted from a unified inpatient EMR, including clinical notes processed with NLP methods. The primary outcome was 30‑day readmission, with 90‑ and 365‑day analyses and competing‑risk consideration of death. Model evaluation used C‑statistics and standard diagnostic metrics, but the abstract does not report numeric performance results. Ethical approval and funding sources were reported, and the manuscript is available as a medRxiv preprint pending peer review.