Development and internal validation of a simple risk stratification score for unplanned emergency department revisits within 24 hours after discharge: A retrospective observational study
- 1Department of Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Kochi University, Nankoku, Kochi, Japan
Abstract
Background: Identifying patients at risk of very early emergency department revisits may help support discharge decision-making, but the extent to which routinely available index‑visit data can predict unplanned returns within 24 h remains unclear. Prior studies suggest that revisits are heterogeneous and influenced by factors beyond the initial encounter, underscoring the need to clarify—not overstate—the predictive value of simple, pragmatic tools. Methods: We conducted a single‑center retrospective study of 2,774 emergency department discharge visits in 2024 in which blood tests were performed. The primary outcome was an unplanned revisit within 24 h to the same emergency department. Two physicians independently adjudicated revisits using administrative and chart data. Candidate predictors included arrival mode, initial vital signs, and routinely available laboratory variables. Continuous variables were screened across prespecified percentile‑based cutoffs, and a simple additive score was constructed from dichotomized items. Internal validation used 2,000 bootstrap resamples with full repetition of item selection and cutoff search. Calibration was assessed using the calibration slope, intercept, and Brier score. Results: There were 91 unplanned revisits (3.28%). Five dichotomized variables were retained: no ambulance use, C‑reactive protein ≥0.39 mg/dL, lymphocyte percentage ≤13.7%, red cell distribution width ≥13.5%, and mean corpuscular volume ≤87 fL. The odds ratio for revisit per 1‑point increase was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.32–1.82). Apparent discrimination was modest (area under the curve, 0.651; 95% confidence interval, 0.592–0.711), with an optimism‑corrected area under the curve of 0.633. Apparent calibration in the derivation cohort was acceptable (slope 1.000; intercept 0.000; Brier score 0.0313). At a ≥ 4‑point threshold, specificity was 92.77% and sensitivity 20.88%. Conclusions: A five‑item score based on index‑visit information showed a graded association with 24‑h revisit risk but modest predictive performance. This highlights the limitations of prediction using discharge‑time data alone and emphasizes the need for external validation and prospective evaluation before clinical implementation.
Related
- Development and Content Validation of The Health Promoting Sports Club Observational Tool
- Implementation of Clinical Pharmacy Activities in Pediatric Cardiology Department: A French Observational Study
- Development and Internal Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Severe Complications After Snakebite: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
- Development and internal validation of prediction models for ICU-level intervention and 14-day mortality at Medical Emergency Team activation: A retrospective cohort study
- Characteristics and hospitalization burden of rare disease inpatients in Northern Henan, 2018–2025: a single-center retrospective observational study
BibTeX
@article{onda2026development,
title = {{Development and internal validation of a simple risk stratification score for unplanned emergency department revisits within 24 hours after discharge: A retrospective observational study}},
author = {Hidetaka Onda and Yuma Kuramatsu and Toyoaki Yamamoto and Atsunori Nishimatsu and Mami Kaneko and Daichi Tsutsui and Mizuki Kojima and Shinya Higuchi and Shinya Takeuchi and Kingo Nishiyama and Masato Miyauchi},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0357575},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357575},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Development and internal validation of a simple risk stratification score for unplanned emergency department revisits within 24 hours after discharge: A retrospective observational study
AU - Hidetaka Onda
AU - Yuma Kuramatsu
AU - Toyoaki Yamamoto
AU - Atsunori Nishimatsu
AU - Mami Kaneko
AU - Daichi Tsutsui
AU - Mizuki Kojima
AU - Shinya Higuchi
AU - Shinya Takeuchi
AU - Kingo Nishiyama
AU - Masato Miyauchi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0357575
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357575
AB - Background: Identifying patients at risk of very early emergency department revisits may help support discharge decision-making, but the extent to which routinely available index‑visit data can predict unplanned returns within 24 h remains unclear. Prior studies suggest that revisits are heterogeneous and influenced by factors beyond the initial encounter, underscoring the need to clarify—not overstate—the predictive value of simple, pragmatic tools. Methods: We conducted a single‑center retrospective study of 2,774 emergency department discharge visits in 2024 in which blood tests were performed. The primary outcome was an unplanned revisit within 24 h to the same emergency department. Two physicians independently adjudicated revisits using administrative and chart data. Candidate predictors included arrival mode, initial vital signs, and routinely available laboratory variables. Continuous variables were screened across prespecified percentile‑based cutoffs, and a simple additive score was constructed from dichotomized items. Internal validation used 2,000 bootstrap resamples with full repetition of item selection and cutoff search. Calibration was assessed using the calibration slope, intercept, and Brier score. Results: There were 91 unplanned revisits (3.28%). Five dichotomized variables were retained: no ambulance use, C‑reactive protein ≥0.39 mg/dL, lymphocyte percentage ≤13.7%, red cell distribution width ≥13.5%, and mean corpuscular volume ≤87 fL. The odds ratio for revisit per 1‑point increase was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.32–1.82). Apparent discrimination was modest (area under the curve, 0.651; 95% confidence interval, 0.592–0.711), with an optimism‑corrected area under the curve of 0.633. Apparent calibration in the derivation cohort was acceptable (slope 1.000; intercept 0.000; Brier score 0.0313). At a ≥ 4‑point threshold, specificity was 92.77% and sensitivity 20.88%. Conclusions: A five‑item score based on index‑visit information showed a graded association with 24‑h revisit risk but modest predictive performance. This highlights the limitations of prediction using discharge‑time data alone and emphasizes the need for external validation and prospective evaluation before clinical implementation.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -