Dataset Information

A comparison of the ability of the National Early Warning Score and the National Early Warning Score 2 to identify patients at risk of in-hospital mortality: A multi-centre database study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To compare the ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) to identify patients at risk of in-hospital mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Methods

We undertook a multi-centre retrospective observational study at five acute hospitals from two UK NHS Trusts. Data were obtained from completed adult admissions who were not fit enough to be discharged alive on the day of admission. Diagnostic coding and oxygen prescriptions were used to identify patients with type II respiratory failure (T2RF). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 24 h of a vital signs observation. Secondary outcomes included unanticipated intensive care unit admission or cardiac arrest within 24 h of a vital signs observation. Discrimination was assessed using the c-statistic.

Results

Among 251,266 adult admissions, 48,898 were identified to be at risk of T2RF by diagnostic coding. In this group, NEWS2 showed statistically significant lower discrimination (c-statistic, 95% CI) for identifying in-hospital mortality within 24 h (0.860, 0.857-0.864) than NEWS (0.881, 0.878-0.884). For 1394 admissions with documented T2RF, discrimination was similar for both systems: NEWS2 (0.841, 0.827-0.855), NEWS (0.862, 0.848-0.875). For all secondary endpoints, NEWS2 showed no improvements in discrimination.

Conclusions

NEWS2 modifications to NEWS do not improve discrimination of adverse outcomes in patients with documented T2RF and decrease discrimination in patients at risk of T2RF. Further evaluation of the relationship between SpO₂ values, oxygen therapy and risk should be investigated further before wide-scale adoption of NEWS2.

SUBMITTER: Pimentel MAF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6995996 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

Project description:The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of the pre-hospital National Early Warning Score (pNEWS) and the pre-hospital Modified Early Warning Score (pMEWS) for predicting admission and in-hospital mortality in elderly patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). We also compare the value of the pNEWS with that of the ED NEWS (eNEWS) and ED MEWS (eMEWS) for predicting admission and in-hospital mortality. This retrospective, single-centre observational study was carried out in the ED of Jikei University Kashiwa Hospital, in Chiba, Japan, from 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2018. All patients aged 65 years or older were included in this study. The pNEWS/eNEWS were derived from seven common physiological vital signs: respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, the presence of inhaled oxygen parameters, body temperature, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate and Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive (AVPU) score, whereas the pMEWS/eMEWS were derived from six common physiological vital signs: respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, body temperature, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate and AVPU score. Discrimination was assessed by plotting the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The median pNEWS, pMEWS, eNEWS and eMEWS were significantly higher at admission than at discharge (p < 0.001). The median pNEWS, pMEWS, eNEWS and eMEWS of non-survivors were significantly higher than those of the survivors (p < 0.001). The AUC for predicting admission was 0.559 for the pNEWS and 0.547 for the pMEWS. There was no significant difference between the AUCs of the pNEWS and the pMEWS for predicting admission (p = 0.102). The AUCs for predicting in-hospital mortality were 0.678 for the pNEWS and 0.652 for the pMEWS. There was no significant difference between the AUCs of the pNEWS and the pMEWS for predicting in-hospital mortality (p = 0.081). The AUC for predicting admission was 0.628 for the eNEWS and 0.591 for the eMEWS. The AUC of the eNEWS was significantly greater than that of the eMEWS for predicting admission (p < 0.001). The AUC for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.789 for the eNEWS and 0.720 for the eMEWS. The AUC of the eNEWS was significantly greater than that of the eMEWS for predicting in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). For admission and in-hospital mortality, the AUC of the eNEWS was significantly greater than that of the pNEWS (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and the AUC of the eMEWS was significantly greater than that of the pMEWS (p < 0.01, p < 0.05). Our single-centre study has demonstrated the low utility of the pNEWS and the pMEWS as predictors of admission and in-hospital mortality in elderly patients, whereas the eNEWS and the eMEWS predicted admission and in-hospital mortality more accurately. Evidence from multicentre studies is needed before introducing pre-hospital versions of risk-scoring systems.