The Accuracy of Predictive Analytics in Forecasting Emergency Department Volume Before and After Onset of COVID-19.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5811/westjem.61059
Anthony M Napoli, Rachel Smith-Shain, Timmy Lin, Janette Baird
{"title":"The Accuracy of Predictive Analytics in Forecasting Emergency Department Volume Before and After Onset of COVID-19.","authors":"Anthony M Napoli, Rachel Smith-Shain, Timmy Lin, Janette Baird","doi":"10.5811/westjem.61059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Big data and improved analytic techniques, such as triple exponential smoothing (TES), allow for prediction of emergency department (ED) volume. We sought to determine 1) which method of TES was most accurate in predicting pre-coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), during COVID-19, and post-COVID-19 ED volume; 2) how the pandemic would affect TES prediction accuracy; and 3) whether TES would regain its pre-COVID-19 accuracy in the early post-pandemic period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We studied monthly volumes of four EDs with a combined annual census of approximately 250,000 visits in the two years prior to, during the 25-month COVID-19 pandemic, and the 14 months following. We compared the accuracy of four models of TES forecasting by measuring the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean square errors (MSE) and mean absolute deviation (MAD), comparing actual to predicted monthly volume.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 23 months prior to COVID-19, the overall average MAPE across four forecasting methods was 3.88% ± 1.88% (range 2.41-6.42% across the four ED sites), rising to 15.21% ± 6.67% during the 25-month COVID-19 period (range 9.97-25.18% across the four sites), and falling to 6.45% ± 3.92% in the 14 months after (range 3.86-12.34% across the four sites). The 12-month Holt-Winter method had the greatest accuracy prior to COVID-19 (3.18% ± 1.65%) and during the pandemic (11.31% ± 4.81%), while the 24-month Holt-Winter offered the best performance following the pandemic (5.91% ± 3.82%). The pediatric ED had an average MAPE more than twice that of the average MAPE of the three adult EDs (6.42% ± 1.54% prior to COVID-19, 25.18% ± 9.42% during the pandemic, and 12.34% ± 0.55% after COVID-19). After the onset of the pandemic, there was no immediate improvement in forecasting model accuracy until two years later; however, these still had not returned to baseline accuracy levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We were able to identify a TES model that was the most accurate. Most of the models saw an approximate four-fold increase in MAPE after onset of the pandemic. In the months following the most severe waves of COVID-19, we saw improvements in the accuracy of forecasting models, but they were not back to pre-COVID-19 accuracies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"61-66"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10777175/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.61059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Big data and improved analytic techniques, such as triple exponential smoothing (TES), allow for prediction of emergency department (ED) volume. We sought to determine 1) which method of TES was most accurate in predicting pre-coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), during COVID-19, and post-COVID-19 ED volume; 2) how the pandemic would affect TES prediction accuracy; and 3) whether TES would regain its pre-COVID-19 accuracy in the early post-pandemic period.

Methods: We studied monthly volumes of four EDs with a combined annual census of approximately 250,000 visits in the two years prior to, during the 25-month COVID-19 pandemic, and the 14 months following. We compared the accuracy of four models of TES forecasting by measuring the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean square errors (MSE) and mean absolute deviation (MAD), comparing actual to predicted monthly volume.

Results: In the 23 months prior to COVID-19, the overall average MAPE across four forecasting methods was 3.88% ± 1.88% (range 2.41-6.42% across the four ED sites), rising to 15.21% ± 6.67% during the 25-month COVID-19 period (range 9.97-25.18% across the four sites), and falling to 6.45% ± 3.92% in the 14 months after (range 3.86-12.34% across the four sites). The 12-month Holt-Winter method had the greatest accuracy prior to COVID-19 (3.18% ± 1.65%) and during the pandemic (11.31% ± 4.81%), while the 24-month Holt-Winter offered the best performance following the pandemic (5.91% ± 3.82%). The pediatric ED had an average MAPE more than twice that of the average MAPE of the three adult EDs (6.42% ± 1.54% prior to COVID-19, 25.18% ± 9.42% during the pandemic, and 12.34% ± 0.55% after COVID-19). After the onset of the pandemic, there was no immediate improvement in forecasting model accuracy until two years later; however, these still had not returned to baseline accuracy levels.

Conclusion: We were able to identify a TES model that was the most accurate. Most of the models saw an approximate four-fold increase in MAPE after onset of the pandemic. In the months following the most severe waves of COVID-19, we saw improvements in the accuracy of forecasting models, but they were not back to pre-COVID-19 accuracies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测分析在 COVID-19 启用前后预测急诊量的准确性。
导言:大数据和改进的分析技术(如三重指数平滑法(TES))可预测急诊科(ED)的门急诊量。我们试图确定:1)哪种 TES 方法能最准确地预测 2019 年冠状病毒感染前(COVID-19)、COVID-19 期间和 COVID-19 后的急诊量;2)大流行会如何影响 TES 预测的准确性;3)TES 是否会在大流行后的早期恢复其 COVID-19 前的准确性:我们研究了四家急诊室在 COVID-19 之前两年、COVID-19 期间 25 个月以及之后 14 个月的月门诊量,这四家急诊室的年门诊量合计约为 250,000 人次。我们通过测量平均绝对百分比误差 (MAPE)、平均平方误差 (MSE) 和平均绝对偏差 (MAD),比较了四个 TES 预测模型的准确性,并将实际月量与预测月量进行了比较:在 COVID-19 之前的 23 个月中,四种预测方法的总体平均 MAPE 为 3.88% ± 1.88%(四个 ED 站点的误差范围为 2.41-6.42%),在 COVID-19 期间的 25 个月中上升到 15.21% ± 6.67%(四个站点的误差范围为 9.97-25.18%),在 COVID-19 之后的 14 个月中下降到 6.45% ± 3.92%(四个站点的误差范围为 3.86-12.34%)。在 COVID-19 之前(3.18% ± 1.65%)和大流行期间(11.31% ± 4.81%),12 个月 Holt-Winter 方法的准确率最高,而在大流行之后,24 个月 Holt-Winter 方法的准确率最高(5.91% ± 3.82%)。儿科急诊室的平均 MAPE 是三个成人急诊室平均 MAPE 的两倍多(COVID-19 之前为 6.42% ± 1.54%,大流行期间为 25.18% ± 9.42%,COVID-19 之后为 12.34% ± 0.55%)。大流行发生后,预测模型的准确性没有立即提高,直到两年后才有所改善;然而,这些准确性仍未恢复到基线准确性水平:结论:我们能够确定一个最准确的 TES 模型。大多数模型的 MAPE 在大流行开始后增加了约四倍。在 COVID-19 疫情最严重的几个月后,我们看到预测模型的准确度有所提高,但仍未恢复到 COVID-19 前的准确度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Prehospital Ultrasound Training on Simulated Paramedic Clinical Decision-Making. Interfacility Patient Transfers During COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed-Methods Study. Making A Difference: Launching a Multimodal, Resident-Run Social Emergency Medicine Program. Methadone Initiation in the Emergency Department for Opioid Use Disorder. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Sepsis in Adult Patients Meeting Two or More Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1