Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Early Warning Scores for Early Severity Assessment in Outpatient Emergency Care: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT:

Background and Objectives

Patient assessment and possible deterioration prediction are a healthcare priority. Increasing demand for outpatient emergency care services requires the implementation of simple, quick, and effective systems of patient evaluation and stratification. The purpose of this review is to identify the most effective Early Warning Score (EWS) for the early detection of the risk of complications when screening emergency outpatients for a potentially serious condition.

Materials and Methods

Systematic review of the bibliography made in 2022. Scientific articles in Spanish and English were collected from the databases and search engines of Pubmed, Cochrane, and Dialnet, which were published between 2017 and 2021 about EWSs and their capacity to predict complications.

Results

For analysis eleven articles were selected. Eight dealt with the application of different early warning scores in outpatient situations, concluding that all the scoring systems they studied were applicable. Three evaluated the predictive ability of various scoring systems and found no significant differences in their results. The eight articles evaluated the suitability of NEWS/NEWS2 to outpatient conditions and concluded it was the most suitable in pre-hospital emergency settings.

Conclusions

The early warning scores that were studied can be applied at the pre-hospital level, as they can predict patient mortality in the short term (24 or 48 h) and support clinical patient evaluation and medical decision making. Among them, NEWS2 is the most suitable for screening potentially deteriorating medical emergency outpatients.

SUBMITTER: Burgos-Esteban A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9330632 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInadequate assessment of the severity and urgency of medical problems is one of the factors contributing to unnecessary emergency department (ED) visits. The implementation of a software-based instrument for standardized initial assessment-Standardisierte medizinische Ersteinschätzung in Deutschland (SmED) (Standardized medical Initial Assessment in Germany in English)-aims to support health care professionals and steer patients toward the right health care provider. This study aimed to explore the implementation process of SmED from a user perspective.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the overall perception of SmED by health care professionals using the software, to examine to what extent SmED influences the workload and work routines of health care professionals, and to determine which factors are associated with the use of SmED.MethodsAn early qualitative process evaluation on the basis of interviews was carried out alongside the implementation of SmED in 26 outpatient emergency care services within 11 federal states in Germany. Participants were 30 health care professionals who work with SmED either at the joint central contact points of the outpatient emergency care service and the EDs of hospitals (ie, the Joint Counter; Gemeinsamer Tresen in German) or at the initial telephone contact points of the outpatient emergency care service (phone number 116117). Matrix-based framework analysis was applied to analyze the interview data.ResultsHealth care professionals perceived that workload increased initially, due to additional time needed per patient. When using SmED more frequently and over a longer time period, its use became more routine and the time needed per call, per patient, decreased. SmED was perceived to support decision making regarding urgency for medical treatment, but not all types of patients were eligible. Technical problems, lack of integration with other software, and lack of practicability during peak times affected the implementation of SmED.ConclusionsInitial experiences with SmED were positive, in general, but also highlighted organizational issues that need to be addressed to enhance sustainability.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017014; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017014.

Project description:ObjectivePaediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) are widely used in the UK, but the heterogeneity across tools and the limited data on their predictive performance represent obstacles to improving best practice. The standardisation of practice through the proposed National PEWS will rely on robust validation. Therefore, we compared the performance of the National PEWS with six other PEWS currently used in NHS hospitals, for their ability to predict critical care (CC) admission in febrile children attending the emergency department (ED).DesignRetrospective single-centre cohort study.SettingTertiary hospital paediatric ED.ParticipantsA total of 11 449 eligible febrile ED attendances were identified from the electronic patient record over a 2-year period. Seven PEWS scores were calculated (Alder Hey, Bedside, Bristol, National, Newcastle and Scotland PEWS, and the Paediatric Observation Priority Score, using the worst observations recorded during their ED stay.OutcomesThe primary outcome was CC admission within 48 hours, the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) >48 hours and sepsis-related mortality.ResultsOf 11 449 febrile children, 134 (1.2%) were admitted to CC within 48 hours of ED presentation, 606 (5.3%) had a hospital LOS >48 hours. 10 (0.09%) children died, 5 (0.04%) were sepsis-related. All seven PEWS demonstrated excellent discrimination for CC admission (range area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) 0.91-0.95) and sepsis-related mortality (range AUC 0.95-0.99), most demonstrated moderate discrimination for hospital LOS (range AUC 0.69-0.75). In CC admission threshold analyses, bedside PEWS (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.93) and National PEWS (AUC 0.90; 0.87-0.93) were the most discriminative, both at a threshold of ≥6.ConclusionsOur results support the use of the proposed National PEWS in the paediatric ED for the recognition of suspected sepsis to improve outcomes, but further validation is required in other settings and presentations.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether National Early Warning Scores (NEWS/NEWS2) could contribute to COVID-19 surveillance in care homes.Setting460 care home units using the same software package to collect data on residents, from 46 local authority areas in England.Participants6464 care home residents with at least one NEWS recording.Exposure measure29 656 anonymised person-level NEWS from 29 December 2019 to 20 May 2020 with component physiological measures: systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, pulse rate, temperature and oxygen saturation. Baseline values for each measure calculated using 80th and 20th centile scores before March 2020.Outcome measureCross-correlation comparison of time series with Office for National Statistics weekly reported registered deaths of care home residents where COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, and all other deaths (excluding COVID-19) up to 10 May 2020.ResultsDeaths due to COVID-19 were registered from 23 March 2020 in the local authority areas represented in the study. Between 23 March 2020 and 10 May 2020, there were 5753 deaths (1532 involving COVID-19 and 4221 other causes). We observed a rise in the proportion of above-baseline NEWS beginning 16 March 2020, followed 2 weeks later by an increase in registered deaths (cross-correlation of r=0.82, p<0.05 for a 2 week lag) in corresponding local authorities. The proportion of above-baseline oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and temperature measurements also increased approximately 2 weeks before peaks in deaths.ConclusionsNEWS could contribute to COVID-19 disease surveillance in care homes during the pandemic. Oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and temperature could be prioritised as they appear to signal rise in mortality almost as well as NEWS. This study reinforces the need to collate data from care homes, to monitor and protect residents' health. Further work using individual level outcome data is needed to evaluate the role of NEWS in the early detection of resident illness.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Finding cost-effective strategies to improve patient care in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing imperative given growing numbers of ED attendees. Encouraging evidence indicates that interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals (HSCPs) enhance patient care across a variety of healthcare settings. However, to date no systematic reviews of the effectiveness of early assessment and/or interventions carried by such teams in the ED exist. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of early assessment and/or intervention carried out by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care, and to define the content of the assessment and/or intervention offered by HSCPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standardised guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that report the impact of early assessment and/or intervention provided to adults aged 18+ by?interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED. Searches will be carried in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE from inception to March 2018. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant studies. Following a two-step screening process, two independent reviewers will extract data on the type of population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The findings will be synthesised in a narrative summary, and a meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval will not be sought since it is not required for systematic reviews. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018091794.