Dataset Information

The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sepsis recognition in older emergency department (ED) patients is difficult due to atypical symptom presentation. We therefore investigated whether the prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores were appropriate for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients (?70 years) compared to a younger control group (<70 years).

Methods

This was an observational multi-centre study using an existing database in which ED patients who were hospitalized with a suspected infection were prospectively included. Patients were stratified by age < 70 and ?70 years. We assessed the association with in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and the area under the curve (AUC) with receiver operator characteristics of the Predisposition, Infection, Response, Organ dysfunction (PIRO), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Mortality in ED Sepsis (MEDS), and the Modified and National Early Warning (MEWS and NEWS) scores.

Results

In-hospital mortality was 9.5% ((95%-CI); 7.4-11.5) in the 783 included older patients, and 4.6% (3.6-5.7) in the 1497 included younger patients. In contrast to younger patients, disease severity scores in older patients associated poorly with mortality. The AUCs of all disease severity scores were poor and ranged from 0.56 to 0.64 in older patients, significantly lower than the good AUC range from 0.72 to 0.86 in younger patients. The MEDS had the best AUC (0.64 (0.57-0.71)) in older patients. In older and younger patients, the newly proposed qSOFA score (Sepsis 3.0) had a lower AUC than the PIRO score (sepsis 2.0).

Conclusion

The prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores was poor and less useful for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients.

SUBMITTER: de Groot B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5594503 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study.

de Groot Bas B Stolwijk Frank F Warmerdam Mats M Lucke Jacinta A JA Singh Gurpreet K GK Abbas Mo M Mooijaart Simon P SP Ansems Annemieke A Esteve Cuevas Laura L Rijpsma Douwe D

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 20170911 1

<h4>Background</h4>Sepsis recognition in older emergency department (ED) patients is difficult due to atypical symptom presentation. We therefore investigated whether the prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores were appropriate for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients (≥70 years) compared to a younger control group (<70 years).<h4>Methods</h4>This was an observational multi-centre study using an existing database in which ED pat ...[more]

PMID: 28893325

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The goal of these analyses was to determine whether there were systematic differences in Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores, which are intended to determine priority of treatment and anticipate resource needs, across categories of race and ethnicity, after accounting for patient-presenting vital signs and examiner characteristics, and whether these differences varied among male and female Veterans Affairs (VA) ED patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We used a large national database of electronic medical records of ED patients from twenty-two U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ED stations to determine whether ESI assignments differ systematically by race or ethnicity. Multi-level, random effects linear modeling was used to control for demographic characteristics and patient's vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, and pain level), as well as age, gender, and experience of triage nurses. The dataset included 129,991 VA patients presenting for emergency care between 2008 and 2012 (91% males; 61% non-Hispanic White, 28% Black, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian, <1% American Indian/Alaska Native, 1% mixed ethnicity) and 774 nurses for a total of 359,642 patient/examiner encounters. Approximately 13% of the variance in ESI scores was due to patient characteristics and 21% was due to the nurse characteristics. After controlling for characteristics of nurses and patients, Black patients were assigned less urgent ESI scores than White patients, and this effect was more prominent for Black males compared with Black females. A similar interaction was found for Hispanic males. It remains unclear how these results may generalize to EDs and patient populations outside of the U.S. VA Health Care system. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest the possibility that subgroups of VA patients receive different ESI ratings in triage, which may have cascading, downstream consequences for patient treatment quality, satisfaction with care, and trust in the health equity of emergency care.

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Project description:BackgroundUtilisation of the Emergency Department (ED) for non-urgent care increases demand for services, therefore reducing inappropriate or avoidable attendances is an important area for intervention in prevention of ED crowding. This study aims to develop a consensus between clinicians across care settings about the "appropriateness" of attendances to the ED in Ireland.MethodsThe Better Data, Better Planning study was a multi-centre, cross-sectional study investigating factors influencing ED utilisation in Ireland. Data was compiled in patient summary files which were assessed for measures of appropriateness by an academic General Practitioner (GP) and academic Emergency Medicine Consultant (EMC) National Panel. In cases where consensus was not reached charts were assessed by an Independent Review Panel (IRP). At each site all files were autonomously assessed by local GP-EMC panels.ResultsThe National Panel determined that 11% (GP) to 38% (EMC) of n = 306 lower acuity presentations could be treated by a GP within 24-48 h (k = 0.259; p < 0.001) and that 18% (GP) to 35% (EMC) of attendances could be considered "inappropriate" (k = 0.341; p < 0.001). For attendances deemed "appropriate" the admission rate was 47% compared to 0% for "inappropriate" attendees. There was no consensus on 45% of charts (n = 136). Subset analysis by the IRP determined that consensus for appropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 59% and for inappropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 29%. For the Local Panel review (n = 306) consensus on appropriateness ranged from 40 to 76% across ED sites.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary clinicians agree that "inappropriate" use of the ED in Ireland is an issue. However, obtaining consensus on appropriateness of attendance is challenging and there was a significant cohort of complex heterogenous presentations where agreement could not be reached by clinicians in this study. This research again demonstrates the complexity of ED crowding, the introduction of evidence-based care pathways targeting avoidable presentations may serve to alleviate the problem in our EDs.

Dataset Information

The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets