Dataset Information

Prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) among hospitalized patients assessed by a rapid response team.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Rapid response teams (RRTs) respond to hospitalized patients experiencing clinical deterioration and help determine subsequent management and disposition. We sought to evaluate and compare the prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) for prediction of in-hospital mortality following RRT activation. We secondarily evaluated a subgroup of patients with suspected infection. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data (2012-2016) of consecutive RRT patients from two hospitals. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We calculated the number needed to examine (NNE), which indicates the number of patients that need to be evaluated in order to detect one future death. RESULTS:Five thousand four hundred ninety-one patients were included, of whom 1837 (33.5%) died in-hospital. Mean age was 67.4?years, and 51.6% were male. A HEWS above the low-risk threshold (??5) had a sensitivity of 75.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.9-77.9) and specificity of 67.6% (95% CI 66.1-69.1) for mortality, with a NNE of 1.84. A NEWS2 above the low-risk threshold (??5) had a sensitivity of 84.5% (95% CI 82.8-86.2), and specificity of 49.0% (95% CI: 47.4-50.7), with a NNE of 2.20. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.76 (95% CI 0.75-0.77) for HEWS and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.71-0.74) for NEWS2. Among suspected infection patients (n?=?1708), AUROC for HEWS was 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.81) and for NEWS2, 0.75 (95% CI 0.73-0.78). CONCLUSIONS:The HEWS has comparable clinical accuracy to NEWS2 for prediction of in-hospital mortality among RRT patients.

SUBMITTER: Fernando SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6385382 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) among hospitalized patients assessed by a rapid response team.

Fernando Shannon M SM Fox-Robichaud Alison E AE Rochwerg Bram B Cardinal Pierre P Seely Andrew J E AJE Perry Jeffrey J JJ McIsaac Daniel I DI Tran Alexandre A Skitch Steven S Tam Benjamin B Hickey Michael M Reardon Peter M PM Tanuseputro Peter P Kyeremanteng Kwadwo K

Critical care (London, England) 20190221 1

<h4>Background</h4>Rapid response teams (RRTs) respond to hospitalized patients experiencing clinical deterioration and help determine subsequent management and disposition. We sought to evaluate and compare the prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) for prediction of in-hospital mortality following RRT activation. We secondarily evaluated a subgroup of patients with suspected infection.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively anal ...[more]

PMID: 30791952

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the UK for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to evaluate NEWS2 for the prediction of severe COVID-19 outcome and identify and validate a set of blood and physiological parameters routinely collected at hospital admission to improve upon the use of NEWS2 alone for medium-term risk stratification.MethodsTraining cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to King's College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1 March to 30 April 2020. External validation cohorts included 6237 patients from five UK NHS Trusts (Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals, University Hospitals Birmingham), one hospital in Norway (Oslo University Hospital), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID-19 disease (transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models.ResultsA baseline model of 'NEWS2 + age' had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID-19 infection at 14 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in training cohort = 0.700, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192, 95% CI 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI 0.715, 0.757), and these improvements were replicated across seven UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites.ConclusionsNEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID-19 outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a need for validated clinical risk scores to identify patients at risk of severe disease and to guide decision-making during the covid-19 pandemic. The National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) is widely used in emergency medicine, but so far, no studies have evaluated its use in patients with covid-19. We aimed to study the performance of NEWS2 and compare commonly used clinical risk stratification tools at admission to predict risk of severe disease and in-hospital mortality in patients with covid-19.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study in a public non-university general hospital in the Oslo area, Norway, including a cohort of all 66 patients hospitalised with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from the start of the pandemic; 13 who died during hospital stay and 53 who were discharged alive. Data were collected consecutively from March 9th to April 27th 2020. The main outcome was the ability of the NEWS2 score and other clinical risk scores at emergency department admission to predict severe disease and in-hospital mortality in covid-19 patients. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for NEWS2 scores ≥5 and ≥ 6, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score ≥ 2, ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and CRB-65 score ≥ 2. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for the clinical risk scores were compared using DeLong's test.ResultsIn total, 66 patients (mean age 67.9 years) were included. Of these, 23% developed severe disease. In-hospital mortality was 20%. Tachypnoea, hypoxemia and confusion at admission were more common in patients developing severe disease. A NEWS2 score ≥ 6 at admission predicted severe disease with 80.0% sensitivity and 84.3% specificity (Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.822, 95% CI 0.690-0.953). NEWS2 was superior to qSOFA score ≥ 2 (AUC 0.624, 95% CI 0.446-0.810, p < 0.05) and other clinical risk scores for this purpose.ConclusionNEWS2 score at hospital admission predicted severe disease and in-hospital mortality, and was superior to other widely used clinical risk scores in patients with covid-19.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of the emergency department (ED) triage is to recognize critically ill patients and to allocate resources. No strong evidence for accuracy of the current triage instruments, especially for the older adults, exists. We evaluated the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and a 3-level triage assessment as risk predictors for frail older adults visiting the ED.MethodsThis prospective, observational study was performed in a Finnish ED. The data were collected in a six-month period and included were ≥ 75-year-old residents with Clinical Frailty Scale score of at least four. We analyzed the predictive values of NEWS2 and the three-level triage scale for 30-day mortality, hospital admission, high dependency unit (HDU) and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, a count of 72-h and 30-day revisits, and ED length-of-stay (LOS).ResultsA total of 1711 ED visits were included. Median for age, CFS, LOS and NEWS2 were 85 years, 6 points, 6.2 h and 1 point, respectively. 30-day mortality was 96/1711. At triage, 69, 356 and 1278 of patients were assessed as red, yellow and green, respectively. There were 1103 admissions, of them 31 to an HDU facility, none to ICU. With NEWS2 and triage score, AUCs for 30-day mortality prediction were 0.70 (0.64-0.76) and 0.62 (0.56-0.68); for hospital admission prediction 0.62 (0.60-0.65) and 0.55 (0.52-0.56), and for HDU admission 0.72 (0.61-0.83) and 0.80 (0.70-0.90), respectively. The NEWS2 divided into risk groups of low, medium and high did not predict the ED LOS (p = 0.095). There was a difference in ED LOS between the red/yellow and as red/green patient groups (p < 0.001) but not between the yellow/green groups (p = 0.59). There were 48 and 351 revisits within 72 h and 30 days, respectively. With NEWS2 AUCs for 72-h and 30-day revisit prediction were 0.48 (95% CI 0.40-0.56) and 0.47 (0.44-0.51), respectively; with triage score 0.48 (0.40-0.56) and 0.49 (0.46-0.52), respectively.ConclusionsThe NEWS2 and a local 3-level triage scale are statistically significant, but poor in accuracy, in predicting 30-day mortality, and HDU admission but not ED LOS or revisit rates for frail older adults. NEWS2 also seems to predict hospital admission.

Project description:BackgroundTimely recognition of warning signs from deteriorating patients and proper treatment are important in improving patient safety. In comparison to the traditional medical emergency team (MET) activation triggered by phone calls, automated activation of MET may minimize activation delays. However, limited data are available on the effects of automated activation systems on the time from derangement to MET activation and on clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of an automated alert and activation system for MET on clinical outcomes in unselected hospitalized patients.MethodsThis is an observational study using prospectively collected data from consecutive patients managed by the MET at a university-affiliated, tertiary hospital from March 2013 to December 2019. The automated alert system automatically calculates the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and subsequently activates MET when the MEWS score is 7 or higher, which was implemented since August 2016. The outcome measures of interest including hospital mortality in patients with MEWS of 7 or higher were compared between pre-implementation and post-implementation groups of the automated alert and activation system in the primary analysis. The association between the implementation of the system and hospital mortality was evaluated with logistic regression analysis.ResultsOf the 7678 patients who were managed by MET during the study period, 639 patients during the pre-implementation period and 957 patients during the post-implementation period were included in the primary analysis. MET calls due to abnormal physiological variables were more common during the pre-implementation period, while MET calls due to medical staff's worries or concern about the patient's condition were more common during the post-implementation period. The median time from deterioration to MET activation was significantly shortened in the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (34 min vs. 60 min, P < 0.001). In addition, unplanned ICU admission rates (41.2% vs. 71.8%, P < 0.001) was reduced during the post-implementation period. Hospital mortality was decreased after implementation of the automated alert system (27.2% vs. 38.5%, P < 0.001). The implementation of the automated alert and activation system was associated with decreased risk of death in the multivariable analysis (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.90).ConclusionsAfter implementing an automated alert and activation system, the time from deterioration to MET activation was shortened and clinical outcomes were improved in hospitalized patients.

Project description:We sought to validate prognostic scores in coronavirus disease 2019 including National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and age-based modifications, and define their performance characteristics.DesignWe analyzed prospectively collected data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. National Early Warning Score was collected daily during the trial, Modified Early Warning Score was calculated, and age applied to both scores. We assessed prognostic value for the end points of recovery, mechanical ventilation, and death for score at enrollment, average, and slope of score over the first 48 hours.SettingA multisite international inpatient trial.PatientsA total of 1,062 adult nonpregnant inpatients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia.InterventionsAdaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 randomized participants to receive remdesivir or placebo. The prognostic value of predictive scores was evaluated in both groups separately to assess for differential performance in the setting of remdesivir treatment.Measurements and main resultsFor mortality, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.60-0.68), and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.66-0.74). For recovery, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated somewhat better prognostic ability (c-index, 0.65-0.69); however, National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age further improved performance (c-index, 0.68-0.71). For deterioration, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.59-0.69) and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.63-0.70). All prognostic performance improvements due to addition of age were significant (p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 cohort, National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated moderate prognostic performance in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, with improvement in predictive ability for National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age. Area under receiver operating curve for National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score improved in patients receiving remdesivir versus placebo early in the pandemic for recovery and mortality. Although these scores are simple and readily obtainable in myriad settings, in our data set, they were insufficiently predictive to completely replace clinical judgment in coronavirus disease 2019 and may serve best as an adjunct to triage, disposition, and resourcing decisions.

Dataset Information

Prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) among hospitalized patients assessed by a rapid response team.

Publications

Prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) among hospitalized patients assessed by a rapid response team.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets