Most Instability Phases Resolve: Empirical Evidence for Trajectory Plasticity in Multimorbidity Care from Longitudinal Relational Monitoring
Martin, C. M.; henderson, i.; Campbell, D.; Stockman, K.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe instability plasticity framework proposes that multimorbidity trajectories periodically enter instability phases that are vulnerable to escalation but also potentially modifiable through relational intervention. Whether such phases commonly resolve without acute care, or predominantly progress to hospitalisation, has not been quantified at scale. ObjectiveTo quantify instability window outcomes across a full longitudinal monitoring cohort; to test whether the characteristics distinguishing admitted from resolved windows reflect within-patient trajectory dynamics or between patient severity; and to characterise which patient-reported and operator-rated signals reliably precede admission, using both a curated pilot sub-cohort and the full monitoring cohort with an explicit cross-cohort comparison. MethodsTwo complementary analyses were conducted on data from the MonashWatch Patient Journey Record (PaJR) relational telehealth system. Instability windows were identified algorithmically ([≥]2 consecutive calls with Total_Alerts [≥]3) across the full longitudinal dataset (16,383 calls, 244 patients, 2.5 years) and classified by linkage to ED and hospital admission data. Window characteristics were compared at window, patient, and paired within-patient levels. Pre-admission signal cascades were analysed in two configurations: a curated pilot sub-cohort (64 patients, 280 calls, {+/-}10-day window, 103 admissions, December 2016-September 2017) and the full monitoring cohort (175 patients, 1,180 pre-admission calls, {+/-}14-day window, December 2016-July 2019). A three-way cross-cohort comparison decomposed differences between the two configurations into pipeline and population effects. Results621 instability windows were identified across 157 patients (64% of the monitored cohort). 67.3% resolved without hospital admission or ED attendance, a rate stable across alert thresholds 1-5. In paired within-patient analysis (n = 70), duration in days (p = 0.002) and multi-domain breadth (p < 0.001) distinguished admitted from resolved windows; alert intensity did not. In the pilot sub-cohort, patient-reported illness prognosis (Q21) was the dominant pre-admission signal (GEE {beta} = +0.058, AUC = 0.647, p-BH = 0.018). This finding did not replicate in the full cohort: Q21 was non-significant (GEE {beta} =- 0.008, p = 0.154, AUC = 0.507). Cross-cohort analysis identified selective curation of the pilot sub-cohort as the primary explanation. In the full cohort, six signals escalated significantly before admission after Benjamini-Hochberg correction: total alerts, health impairment (Q26), red alerts, self-rated health (Q3), patient concerns (Q1), and operator concern (Q34). Health impairment achieved the highest individual AUC (0.605) and showed the longest pre-admission lead. No individual signal exceeded AUC 0.61. ConclusionsTwo thirds of instability phases resolve without hospitalisation, providing direct empirical support for trajectory plasticity as a clinically frequent phenomenon. Within the same patient, persistence -- in duration and in the consistency of high-severity multi-domain flagging across calls -- distinguishes trajectories that tip into admission from those that resolve. The Q21 signal reversal between cohorts illustrates how selective curation can produce compelling but non-replicable findings in monitoring research. In the full population, objective alert signals and operator judgement, rather than patient illness prognosis, carry the pre-admission signal.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying clusters of people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions using Large Language Models: a population-based study 92%
- Machine Learning for Real-Time Aggregated Prediction of Hospital Admission for Emergency Patients 92%
- Continuous-Time and Dynamic Suicide Attempt Risk Prediction with Neural Ordinary Differential Equations 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 94%
- LMIC-PRIEST: Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting 93%
- Sickness Absence Rates in NHS England Staff during the COVID-19 Pandemic: insights from multivariate regression and time series modelling 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating the impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in patients with covid-19 assessed in Accident and Emergency departments in England: a retrospective matched cohort study 94%
- Population level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with covid-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design 93%
- Accuracy of the National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2) in predicting need for time-critical treatment: Retrospective observational cohort study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Remote Covid Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies 94%
- An external validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of mortality from COVID-19 in adults: national validation cohort study in England 92%
- Real-world evaluation of AI-driven COVID-19 triage for emergency admissions: External validation & operational assessment of lab-free and high-throughput screening solutions 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of atypical intrahospital transfers on patient outcomes: a mixed methods study 94%
- Using explainable machine learning to identify patients at risk of reattendance at discharge from emergency departments 94%
- Developing And Validating COVID-19 Adverse Outcome Risk Prediction Models From A Bi-National European Cohort Of 5594 Patients 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.