Search

Emergency department discharge delays are a critical operational bottleneck shaped by diagnostic completion intervals, inpatient bed scarcity, consultant responsiveness, and patient acuity. Understanding these drivers in real time is essential for improving flow and reducing avoidable crowding. Current ED analytics often describe aggregate delays after they occur. Clinicians and operational managers therefore lack transparent patient-level tools that indicate which factor is most responsible for a specific delayed discharge episode. This article proposes an explainable gradient-boosting framework for identifying key contributors to delayed ED discharge. The framework focuses on diagnostic order completion times, bed availability, consultant response delays, and patient acuity scores. The proposed framework uses a gradient-boosted tree ensemble trained on historical ED visit data and paired with SHAP-based post-hoc explanations. It is designed conceptually for real-time use with live electronic health record, bed-board, order, and consultation data. Conceptually, the framework would generate both a delay-risk score and an interpretable decomposition of that risk. These explanations could support targeted actions such as expediting a pending diagnostic test, escalating bed-management review, or re-contacting a delayed consultant service. The framework would shift ED discharge management from reactive reporting toward proactive operational decision support. Explainability is positioned as the foundation for clinician trust, workflow alignment, and accountable deployment.

Diagnostic test overuse in outpatient settings contributes to wasteful spending and may expose patients to unnecessary downstream testing, anxiety, and treatment cascades. Common examples include low-value imaging, repetitive laboratory testing, and routine preoperative or annual tests without clear clinical indication. Existing approaches often rely on manual review, retrospective measurement, or rigid rule-based filters. These approaches may miss context-sensitive overuse shaped by visit type, clinician habit, patient complexity, and recent test history. This manuscript proposes an interpretable random forest model that predicts whether a diagnostic test order could represent overuse. The model integrates visit-level, physician-level, patient-level, prior-result, and guideline-based appropriateness features. The proposed model would use historical outpatient orders labelled through appropriateness criteria or expert review. SHAP-based explanations would be used to make each prediction interpretable to clinicians and quality leaders. Conceptually, the model would estimate an overuse probability and identify the relative contribution of physician ordering history, patient complexity, prior results, visit type, and guideline indicators. These explanations would support targeted feedback rather than opaque surveillance. An interpretable random forest model could function as a personalised overuse screening tool within clinical decision support. Its value would depend on transparent explanations, careful guideline alignment, and thoughtful integration into outpatient workflows.