Dataset Information

Validation of physiological scoring systems in the accident and emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scoring systems that weigh the degree of abnormality of bedside observations might be able to identify patients at risk of catastrophic deterioration.

Objectives

To establish a frequency distribution for typical physiological scoring systems and to establish the potential benefit of adding these to an existing triage system in accident and emergency departments.

Methods

Physiological data were collected from 53 unselected emergency department admissions, from 50 patients admitted from the emergency department to intensive care, and from 50 patients admitted from emergency department to general wards and then to intensive care. Three different physiological scores were calculated from the data. Identification of sick patients by the scores was compared with triage information from the Manchester Triage System (MTS).

Results

Most patients admitted to the emergency department would not be identified as critically ill with the aid of physiological scoring systems. This was true even for patients who were admitted to intensive care. Only in 0-8% of unselected patients did the scores indicate increased risk. In 100 patients admitted to the intensive care, adding of medical emergency team call-out criteria, Modified Early Warning Score or Assessment Score for Sick patient Identification and Step-up in Treatment would identify none, seven or one patient in addition to those triaged as orange and red by the MTS.

Conclusions

Introduction of a physiological scoring system would have identified only a small number of additional patients as critically ill and added little to the triage system currently in use.

SUBMITTER: Subbe CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2464409 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of physiological scoring systems in the accident and emergency department.

Subbe C P CP Slater A A Menon D D Gemmell L L

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 20061101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Scoring systems that weigh the degree of abnormality of bedside observations might be able to identify patients at risk of catastrophic deterioration.<h4>Objectives</h4>To establish a frequency distribution for typical physiological scoring systems and to establish the potential benefit of adding these to an existing triage system in accident and emergency departments.<h4>Methods</h4>Physiological data were collected from 53 unselected emergency department admissions, from 50 ...[more]

PMID: 17057134

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple scoring systems have been developed for both the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify patients and predict mortality. However, it remains unclear whether the additional data needed to compute ICU scores improves mortality prediction for critically ill patients compared to the simpler ED scores.MethodsWe studied a prospective observational cohort of 227 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU directly from the ED at an academic, tertiary care medical center. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Prince of Wales Emergency Department Score (PEDS), and a pre-hospital critical illness prediction score developed by Seymour et al. (JAMA 2010, 304(7):747-754). The primary endpoint was 60-day mortality. We compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different scores and their calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and visual assessment.ResultsThe ICU scores outperformed the ED scores with higher area under the curve (AUC) values (p = 0.01). There were no differences in discrimination among the ED-based scoring systems (AUC 0.698 to 0.742; p = 0.45) or among the ICU-based scoring systems (AUC 0.779 to 0.799; p = 0.60). With the exception of the Seymour score, the ED-based scoring systems did not discriminate as well as the best-performing ICU-based scoring system, APACHE III (p = 0.005 to 0.01 for comparison of ED scores to APACHE III). The Seymour score had a superior AUC to other ED scores and, despite a lower AUC than all the ICU scores, was not significantly different than APACHE III (p = 0.09). When data from the first 24 h in the ICU was used to calculate the ED scores, the AUC for the ED scores improved numerically, but this improvement was not statistically significant. All scores had acceptable calibration.ConclusionsIn contrast to prior studies of patients based in the emergency department, ICU scores outperformed ED scores in critically ill patients admitted from the emergency department. This difference in performance seemed to be primarily due to the complexity of the scores rather than the time window from which the data was derived.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To derive and validate a new clinical prediction rule to risk-stratify emergency department (ED) patients admitted with suspected sepsis. DESIGN:Retrospective prognostic study of prospectively collected data. SETTING:ED. PARTICIPANTS:Patients aged ?18 years who met two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria or one Red Flag sepsis criteria on arrival, received intravenous antibiotics for a suspected infection and admitted. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE:In-hospital all-cause mortality. METHOD:The data were divided into derivation and validation cohorts. The simplified-Mortality in Severe Sepsis in the ED score and quick-SOFA scores, refractory hypotension and lactate were collectively termed 'component scores' and cumulatively termed the 'Risk-stratification of ED suspected Sepsis (REDS) score'. Each patient in the derivation cohort received a score (0-3) for each component score. The REDS score ranged from 0 to 12. The component scores were subject to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the REDS and the components scores were constructed and their cut-off points identified. Scores above the cut-off points were deemed high-risk. The area under the ROC (AUROC) curves and sensitivity for mortality of the high-risk category of the REDS score and component scores were compared. The REDS score was internally validated. RESULTS:2115 patients of whom 282 (13.3%) died in hospital. Derivation cohort: 1078 patients with 140 deaths (13%). The AUROC curve with 95% CI, cut-off point and sensitivity for mortality (95% CI) of the high-risk category of the REDS score were: derivation: 0.78 (0.75 to 0.80); ?3; 85.0 (78 to 90.5). VALIDATION:0.74 (0.71 to 0.76); ?3; 84.5 (77.5 to 90.0). The AUROC curve and the sensitivity for mortality of the REDS score was better than that of the component scores. Specificity and mortality rates for REDS scores of ?3, ?5 and ?7 were 54.8%, 88.8% and 96.9% and 21.8%, 36.0% and 49.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION:The REDS score is a simple and objective score to risk-stratify ED patients with suspected sepsis.

Dataset Information

Validation of physiological scoring systems in the accident and emergency department.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Validation of physiological scoring systems in the accident and emergency department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets