A Comparison of the Quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment Score and the National Early Warning Score in Non-ICU Patients With/Without Infection

The Epidemiological, Clinical, and Microbiological Features of Patients with Burkholderia pseudomallei Bacteraemia-Implications for Clinical Management

Patients with melioidosis are commonly bacteraemic. However, the epidemiological characteristics, the microbiological findings, and the clinical associations of Burkholderia pseudomallei bacteraemia are incompletely defined. All cases of culture-confirmed melioidosis at Cairns Hospital in tropical Australia between January 1998 and June 2023 were reviewed. The presence of bacteraemia was determined and correlated with patient characteristics and outcomes; 332/477 (70%) individuals in the cohort were bacteraemic. In multivariable analysis, immunosuppression (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): (2.76 (1.21-6.27), p = 0.02), a wet season presentation (2.27 (1.44-3.59), p < 0.0001) and male sex (1.69 (1.08-2.63), p = 0.02), increased the likelihood of bacteraemia. Patients with a skin or soft tissue infection (0.32 (0.19-0.57), p < 0.0001) or without predisposing factors for melioidosis (0.53 (0.30-0.93), p = 0.03) were less likely to be bacteraemic. Bacteraemia was associated with intensive care unit admission (OR (95%CI): 4.27 (2.35-7.76), p < 0.0001), and death (2.12 (1.04-4.33), p = 0.04). The median (interquartile range) time to blood culture positivity was 31 (26-39) hours. Patients with positive blood cultures within 24 h were more likely to die than patients whose blood culture flagged positive after this time (OR (95%CI): 11.05 (3.96-30.83), p < 0.0001). Bacteraemia portends a worse outcome in patients with melioidosis. Its presence or absence might be used to help predict outcomes in cases of melioidosis and to inform optimal clinical management.

Performance of point-of-care severity scores to predict prognosis in patients admitted through the emergency department with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Identifying COVID-19 patients at the highest risk of poor outcomes is critical in emergency department (ED) presentation. Sepsis risk stratification scores can be calculated quickly for COVID-19 patients but have not been evaluated in a large cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether well-known risk scores can predict poor outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with COVID-19 to 156 Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Healthcare EDs, March 2, 2020, to February 11, 2021.

INTERVENTION

Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Shock Index, National Early Warning System-2 (NEWS2), and quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI) at presentation.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors receipt. Patients scored positive with qSOFA ≥ 2, Shock Index > 0.7, NEWS2 ≥ 5, and qCSI ≥ 4. Test characteristics and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 90,376 patients with community-acquired COVID-19 (mean age 64.3 years, 46.8% female). 17.2% of patients died in-hospital, 28.6% went to the ICU, 13.7% received mechanical ventilation, and 13.6% received vasopressors. There were 3.8% qSOFA-positive, 45.1% Shock Index-positive, 49.8% NEWS2-positive, and 37.6% qCSI-positive at ED-triage. NEWS2 exhibited the highest AUROC for in-hospital mortality (0.593, confidence interval [CI]: 0.588-0.597), ICU admission (0.602, CI: 0.599-0.606), mechanical ventilation (0.614, CI: 0.610-0.619), and vasopressor receipt (0.600, CI: 0.595-0.604).

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis severity scores at presentation have low discriminative power to predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients and are not reliable for clinical use. Severity scores should be developed using features that accurately predict poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients to develop more effective risk-based triage.

Performance of bedside tools for predicting infection-related mortality and administrative data for sepsis surveillance: An observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Measuring sepsis incidence and associated mortality at scale using administrative data is hampered by variation in diagnostic coding. This study aimed first to compare how well bedside severity scores predict 30-day mortality in hospitalised patients with infection, then to assess the ability of combinations of administrative data items to identify patients with sepsis.

METHODS

This retrospective case note review examined 958 adult hospital admissions between October 2015 and March 2016. Admissions with blood culture sampling were matched 1:1 to admissions without a blood culture. Case note review data were linked to discharge coding and mortality. For patients with infection the performance characteristics of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), National Early Warning System (NEWS), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) were calculated for predicting 30-day mortality. Next, the performance characteristics of administrative data (blood cultures and discharge codes) for identifying patients with sepsis, defined as SOFA ≥2 because of infection, were calculated.

RESULTS

Infection was documented in 630 (65.8%) admissions and 347 (55.1%) patients with infection had sepsis. NEWS (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic, AUROC 0.78 95%CI 0.72-0.83) and SOFA (AUROC 0.77, 95%CI 0.72-0.83), performed similarly well for prediction of 30-day mortality. Having an infection and/or sepsis International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code (AUROC 0.68, 95%CI 0.64-0.71) performed as well in identifying patients with sepsis as having at least one of: an infection code; sepsis code, or; blood culture (AUROC 0.68, 95%CI 0.65-0.71), Sepsis codes (AUROC 0.53, 95%CI 0.49-0.57) and positive blood cultures (AUROC 0.52, 95%CI 0.49-0.56) performed least well.

CONCLUSIONS

SOFA and NEWS best predicted 30-day mortality in patients with infection. Sepsis ICD-10 codes lack sensitivity. For health systems without suitable electronic health records, blood culture sampling has potential utility as a clinical component of a proxy marker for sepsis surveillance.

The predictive value of modified risk scores in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: a retrospective cohort study

This study aims to evaluate the performance of CREWS (Chronic Respiratory Early Warning Score), S-NEWS (Salford-National Early Warning Score), qNEWS (Quick National Early Warning Score), NEWS (National Early Warning Score), and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) scores in predicting mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) of patients presented with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2019. The patients with AECOPD and aged ≥ 18 were included. Patients who were transferred from another center and whose data could not be reached were excluded. Demographic information, comorbid diseases, variables of the scores, laboratory results, and outcomes were recorded. A total of 575 consecutive patients were included. The 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and MV need rate were 5.7% (n = 33), 9.6% (n = 55), and 13.7% (n = 79), respectively. Each score had moderate-to-excellent performance in predicting MV need and ICU admission, while their performance in predicting mortality was poor. CREWS is the most successful score in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC 0.695), ICU admission (AUC 0.841), and MV need (AUC 0.924). ICU admission, age, and creatinine levels were associated with mortality (p < 0.05). All scores have better performance in predicting ICU admission and MV need than mortality. ICU admission, age, and creatinine levels may be the predictors of mortality among AECOPD patients.

PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal use of antibiotics in the emergency department (PRONTO): protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is a common, potentially life-threatening complication of infection. The optimal treatment for sepsis includes prompt antibiotics and intravenous fluids, facilitated by its early and accurate recognition. Currently, clinicians identify and assess severity of suspected sepsis using validated clinical scoring systems. In England, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been mandated across all National Health Service (NHS) trusts and ambulance organisations. Like many clinical scoring systems, NEWS2 should not be used without clinical judgement to determine either the level of acuity or a diagnosis. Despite this, there is a tendency to overemphasise the score in isolation in patients with suspected infection, leading to the overprescription of antibiotics and potentially treatment-related complications and rising antimicrobial resistance. The biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) has been shown to be useful in specific circumstances to support appropriate antibiotics prescribing by identifying bacterial infection. PCT is not routinely used in the care of undifferentiated patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs), and the evidence base of its optimal usage is poor. The PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal (PRONTO) study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED to compare standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment with standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring alone and compare if this approach reduces prescriptions of antibiotics without increasing mortality.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PRONTO is a parallel two-arm open-label individually RCT set in up to 20 NHS EDs in the UK with a target sample size of 7676 participants. Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring or standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment. We will compare whether the addition of PCT measurement to NEWS2 scoring can lead to a reduction in intravenous antibiotic initiation in ED patients managed as suspected sepsis, with at least no increase in 28-day mortality compared with NEWS2 scoring alone (in conjunction with local standard care pathways). PRONTO has two coprimary endpoints: initiation of intravenous antibiotics at 3 hours (superiority comparison) and 28-day mortality (non-inferiority comparison). The study has an internal pilot phase and group-sequential stopping rules for effectiveness and futility/safety, as well as a qualitative substudy and a health economic evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and NHS Research Ethics Committee (Wales REC 2, reference 20/WA/0058). In England and Wales, the law allows the use of deferred consent in approved research situations (including ED studies) where the time dependent nature of intervention would not allow true informed consent to be obtained. PRONTO has approval for a deferred consent process to be used. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN54006056.

The early use of sepsis scores to predict respiratory failure and mortality in non-ICU patients with COVID-19

This observational retrospective study aimed to investigate the usefulness of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and quick NEWS in predicting respiratory failure and death among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized outside of intensive care units (ICU). We included 237 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who were followed-up on for one month or until death. Respiratory failure was defined as a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio ≤200 mmHg or the need for mechanical ventilation. Respiratory failure occurred in 77 patients (32.5%), 29 patients (12%) were admitted to the ICU, and 49 patients (20.7%) died. Discrimination of respiratory failure was slightly higher in NEWS, followed by SOFA. Regarding mortality, SOFA was more accurate than the other scores. In conclusion, sepsis scores are useful for predicting respiratory failure and mortality in COVID-19 patients. A NEWS score ≥4 was found to be the best cutoff point for predicting respiratory failure.

Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score and the Modified Early Warning Score for Predicting Clinical Deterioration in General Ward Patients Regardless of Suspected Infection

BACKGROUND

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is suggested to use for screening patients with a high risk of clinical deterioration in the general wards, which could simply be regarded as a general early warning score. However, comparison of unselected admissions to highlight the benefits of introducing qSOFA in hospitals already using Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) remains unclear. We sought to compare qSOFA with MEWS for predicting clinical deterioration in general ward patients regardless of suspected infection.

METHODS

The predictive performance of qSOFA and MEWS for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) transfer was compared with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis using the databases of vital signs collected from consecutive hospitalized adult patients over 12 months in five participating hospitals in Korea.

RESULTS

Of 173,057 hospitalized patients included for analysis, 668 (0.39%) experienced the composite outcome. The discrimination for the composite outcome for MEWS (AUC, 0.777; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.770-0.781) was higher than that for qSOFA (AUC, 0.684; 95% CI, 0.676-0.686; P < 0.001). In addition, MEWS was better for prediction of IHCA (AUC, 0.792; 95% CI, 0.781-0.795 vs. AUC, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.625-0.645; P < 0.001) and unexpected ICU transfer (AUC, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.760-0.773 vs. AUC, 0.716; 95% CI, 0.707-0.718; P < 0.001) than qSOFA. Using the MEWS at a cutoff of ≥ 5 would correctly reclassify 3.7% of patients from qSOFA score ≥ 2. Most patients met MEWS ≥ 5 criteria 13 hours before the composite outcome compared with 11 hours for qSOFA score ≥ 2.

CONCLUSION

MEWS is more accurate that qSOFA score for predicting IHCA or unexpected ICU transfer in patients outside the ICU. Our study suggests that qSOFA should not replace MEWS for identifying patients in the general wards at risk of poor outcome.

Predictive performance of comorbidity for 30-day and 1-year mortality in patients with bloodstream infection visiting the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) predicted short-term and long-term mortality in patients with a bloodstream infection visiting the emergency department (ED) and compare it to the often-validated National Early Warning Score (NEWS).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients attending the ED with a blood culture-proven infection between 2012 and 2017 were included. We collected the comorbidities from the CCI and the vital signs from the NEWS.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Short-term mortality (30-day) and long-term mortality (1 year). We assessed the predictive performance by discrimination, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

We included 1039 patients with a blood culture-proven infection. Mortality was 10.4% within 30 days and 27.8% within 1 year. On average patients had two comorbidities (ranging from 0 to 6). Highly prevalent comorbidities were malignancy (30.2%) and diabetes mellitus (20.5%). The predictive performance of the CCI was highest for 1-year mortality (AUC 0.696 (95%CI) (0.660 to 0.732)) and better compared with the NEWS (AUC (95% CI) 0.594 (0.555 to 0.632)). For prediction of 30-day mortality, the NEWS was superior (AUC (95% CI) 0.706 (0.656 to 0.756)) to the comorbidities of the CCI (AUC (95% CI) 0.568 (0.507 to 0.628)).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that presenting comorbidity (ie, the CCI) is most useful to prognosticate long-term outcome in patients with bloodstream infection in the ED. Short-term mortality is more accurately predicted by deviating vital signs (ie, the NEWS).

A comparison of scoring systems for predicting mortality and sepsis in the emergency department patients with a suspected infection

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the modified National Early Warning Score (mNEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (mSIRS) score, and modified Search Out Severity (mSOS) score in predicting mortality and sepsis among patients suspected of first observed infections in the emergency department. The modified scores were created by removing variables for simplicity.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study that enrolled adult patients presenting at the emergency department with signs and symptoms suggesting infection. The mNEWS, qSOFA score, mSIRS score, and mSOS score were calculated using triage data. The SOFA score was a reference standard for sepsis diagnosis. All patients were monitored for up to 30 days after the initial visit to measure each scoring system's ability to predict 30-day mortality and sepsis.

RESULTS

There were 260 patients included in the study. The 30-day mortality prediction with mNEWS ≥5 had the highest sensitivity (91.18%). The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the 30-day mortality prediction was mNEWS (0.607), followed by qSOFA (0.605), mSOS (0.550), and mSIRS (0.423). The sepsis prediction with mNEWS ≥5 had the highest sensitivity (96.48%). The highest AUC for the sepsis prediction was also mNEWS (0.685), followed by qSOFA (0.605), mSOS (0.480), and mSIRS (0.477).

CONCLUSION

mNEWS was an acceptable scoring system screening tool for predicting mortality and sepsis in patients with a suspected infection.

Clinical prediction rule for bacteremia with pyelonephritis and hospitalization judgment: chi-square automatic interaction detector (CHAID) decision tree analysis model

Objective

This study was performed to identify predictive factors for bacteremia among patients with pyelonephritis using a chi-square automatic interaction detector (CHAID) decision tree analysis model.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional survey was performed at Juntendo University Nerima Hospital, Tokyo, Japan and included all patients with pyelonephritis from whom blood cultures were taken. At the time of blood culture sample collection, clinical information was extracted from the patients’ medical charts, including vital signs, symptoms, laboratory data, and culture results. Factors potentially predictive of bacteremia among patients with pyelonephritis were analyzed using Student’s t-test or the chi-square test and the CHAID decision tree analysis model.

Results

In total, 198 patients (60 (30.3%) men, 138 (69.7%) women; mean age, 74.69 ± 15.27 years) were included in this study, of whom 92 (46.4%) had positive blood culture results. The CHAID decision tree analysis revealed that patients with a white blood cell count of >21,000/μL had a very high risk (89.5%) of developing bacteremia. Patients with a white blood cell count of ≤21,000/μL plus chills plus an aspartate aminotransferase concentration of >19 IU/L constituted the high-risk group (69.0%).

Conclusion

The present results are extremely useful for predicting the results of bacteremia among patients with pyelonephritis.

Predictive Value of an Age-Based Modification of the National Early Warning System in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Early recognition of high-risk patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may improve outcomes. Although many predictive scoring systems exist, their complexity may limit utility in COVID-19. We assessed the prognostic performance of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and an age-based modification (NEWS+age) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients enrolled in a prospective, multicenter US Military Health System (MHS) observational cohort study.

METHODS

Hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at admission and with a baseline NEWS were included. We analyzed each scoring system's ability to predict key clinical outcomes, including progression to invasive ventilation or death, stratified by baseline severity (low [0-3], medium [4-6], and high [≥7]).

RESULTS

Among 184 included participants, those with low baseline NEWS had significantly shorter hospitalizations (P < .01) and lower maximum illness severity (P < .001). Most (80.2%) of low NEWS vs 15.8% of high NEWS participants required no or at most low-flow oxygen supplementation. Low NEWS (≤3) had a negative predictive value of 97.2% for progression to invasive ventilation or death; a high NEWS (≥7) had high specificity (93.1%) but low positive predictive value (42.1%) for such progression. NEWS+age performed similarly to NEWS at predicting invasive ventilation or death (NEWS+age: area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.73; NEWS: AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

NEWS and NEWS+age showed similar test characteristics in an MHS COVID-19 cohort. Notably, low baseline scores had an excellent negative predictive value. Given their easy applicability, these scoring systems may be useful in resource-limited settings to identify COVID-19 patients who are unlikely to progress to critical illness.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department attendances and acute medical admissions

BACKGROUND

To better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital healthcare, we studied activity in the emergency department (ED) and acute medicine department of a major UK hospital.

METHODS

Electronic patient records for all adult patients attending ED (n = 243,667) or acute medicine (n = 82,899) during the pandemic (2020-2021) and prior year (2019) were analysed and compared. We studied parameters including severity, primary diagnoses, co-morbidity, admission rate, length of stay, bed occupancy, and mortality, with a focus on non-COVID-19 diseases.

RESULTS

During the first wave of the pandemic, daily ED attendance fell by 37%, medical admissions by 30% and medical bed occupancy by 27%, but all returned to normal within a year. ED attendances and medical admissions fell across all age ranges; the greatest reductions were seen for younger adults in ED attendances, but in older adults for medical admissions. Compared to non-COVID-19 pandemic admissions, COVID-19 admissions were enriched for minority ethnic groups, for dementia, obesity and diabetes, but had lower rates of malignancy. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, non-COVID-19 pandemic admissions had more hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, liver disease, and obesity. There were fewer low severity ED attendances during the pandemic and fewer medical admissions across all severity categories. There were fewer ED attendances with common non-respiratory illnesses including cardiac diagnoses, but no change in cardiac arrests. COVID-19 was the commonest diagnosis amongst medical admissions during the first wave and there were fewer diagnoses of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, heart failure, cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urinary tract infection and other sepsis, but not stroke. Levels had rebounded by a year later with a trend to higher levels of stroke than before the pandemic. During the pandemic first wave, 7-day mortality was increased for ED attendances, but not for non-COVID-19 medical admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced ED attendances in the first wave of the pandemic suggest opportunities for reducing low severity presentations to ED in the future, but also raise the possibility of harm from delayed or missed care. Reassuringly, recent rises in attendance and admissions indicate that any deterrent effect of the pandemic on attendance is diminishing.

Prognostic and discriminative accuracy of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment compared with an early warning score: a Danish cohort study

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of implementing the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) instead of early warning scores (EWS) to screen all hospitalised patients for critical illness has yet to be investigated in a large, multicentre study.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study including all hospitalised patients ≥18 years with EWS recorded at hospitals in the Central Denmark Region during the year 2016. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death within 2 days following an initial EWS. Prognostic accuracy was examined using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). Discriminative accuracy was examined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

Among 97 332 evaluated patients, 1714 (1.8%) experienced the primary outcome. The qSOFA ≥2 was less sensitive (11.7% (95% CI: 10.2% to 13.3%) vs 25.1% (95% CI: 23.1% to 27.3%)) and more specific (99.3% (95% CI: 99.2% to 99.3%) vs 97.5% (95% CI: 97.4% to 97.6%)) than EWS ≥5. The NPV was similar for the two scores (EWS ≥5, 98.6% (95% CI: 98.6% to 98.7%) and qSOFA ≥2, 98.4% (95% CI: 98.3% to 98.5%)), while the PPV was 15.1% (95% CI: 13.8% to 16.5%) for EWS ≥5 and 22.4% (95% CI: 19.7% to 25.3%) for qSOFA ≥2. The AUROC was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.73) for EWS and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.67) for qSOFA.

CONCLUSION

The qSOFA was less sensitive (qSOFA ≥2 vs EWS ≥5) and discriminatively accurate than the EWS for predicting ICU admission and/or death within 2 days after an initial EWS. This study did not support replacing EWS with qSOFA in all hospitalised patients.

The Use of Different Sepsis Risk Stratification Tools on the Wards and in Emergency Departments Uncovers Different Mortality Risks: Results of the Three Welsh National Multicenter Point-Prevalence Studies

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

To compare the performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, Red Flag Sepsis, and National Institute of Clinical Excellence sepsis risk stratification tools in the identification of patients at greatest risk of mortality from sepsis in nonintensive care environments.

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracies of qSOFA, NEWS, and MEWS to Identify Sepsis in Older Inpatients With Suspected Infection

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracies of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Modified and National Early Warning Scores (NEWS and MEWS) to identify sepsis in older inpatients with suspected infection.

DESIGN

Prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients admitted to an acute geriatric unit of an Italian University Hospital with at least one sepsis risk factor and suspected infection defined as antibiotic prescription and associated culture test during hospital stay.

METHODS

Sepsis diagnosis was defined as the presence on discharge documents of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification codes for severe sepsis, septic shock, or for infection and acute organ disfunction. For each patient, clinical parameters were evaluated at least twice daily throughout hospital stay; qSOFA, NEWS, and MEWS were derived, and worst scores recorded. Positive cutoffs were set at ≥2, ≥7, and ≥5, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively), and positive and negative likelihood ratios, as well as areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 230 geriatric patients with suspected infection at risk for sepsis (median age 86 years, 49% women), 30.9% had a sepsis diagnosis. A qSOFA ≥2 was recorded in 111 (48.3%) patients, a MEWS ≥5 in 65 (28.3%), and a NEWS ≥7 in 115 (50.0%). The qSOFA showed the highest sensitivity [81.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 71.7%-89.5%], but low specificity (66.7%, 95% CI 59.1%-73.7%), resulting in a high NPV (89.1%; 95% CI 82.7%-93.8%) and poor PPV (52.3%, 95% CI 43.0%-61.4%). The AUROC for qSOFA was 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.83), comparable with that of NEWS (0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.81, P = .44), but significantly higher than that of MEWS (0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.77, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Repeated qSOFA determinations are useful to rule out sepsis in geriatric inpatients with suspected infection, but poorly support its diagnosis due to low specificity. More complex MEWS and NEWS do not perform better. Implementation of clinical scores to reliably identify sepsis in older patients is urgently needed.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Comparison of qSOFA and Hospital Early Warning Scores for prognosis in suspected sepsis in emergency department patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and many tools exist to facilitate early recognition. This review compares two tools: the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Early Warning Scores (National/Modified Early Warning Scores (NEWS/MEWS)) for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality when applied in the emergency department.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library, handsearching of references and a grey literature search with no language or date restrictions. Two authors selected studies and quality assessment completed using QUADAS-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivities and specificities were compared.

RESULTS

13 studies were included, totalling 403 865 patients. All reported mortality and six reported ICU admission.The ranges for AUROC estimates varied from little better than chance to good prediction of mortality (NEWS: 0.59-0.88; qSOFA: 0.57-0.79; MEWS 0.56-0.75), however, individual papers generally reported higher AUROC values for NEWS than qSOFA. NEWS values demonstrated a tendency towards better sensitivity for ICU admission (NEWS ≥5, 46%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 12%-53%) and mortality (NEWS ≥5, 51%-97%; qSOFA ≥2, 14%-71%) but lower specificity (ICU: NEWS ≥5, 25%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 67%-99%; mortality: NEWS ≥5, 22%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 58%-99%).

CONCLUSION

The wide range of AUROC estimates and high heterogeneity limit our conclusions. Allowing for this, the NEWS AUROC was consistently higher than qSOFA within individual papers. Both scores allow threshold setting, determined by the preferred compromise between sensitivity and specificity. At established thresholds NEWS tended to higher sensitivity while qSOFA tended to a higher specificity.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019131414.

Retrospective single-centre descriptive study of the characteristics, management and outcomes of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected sepsis recommend protocols and bundles that promote rapid and potentially intensive treatment, but give little consideration of how patient characteristics, such as age, functional status and comorbidities, might influence management. This study aimed to describe the characteristics, management and outcomes of adults attending the ED with suspected sepsis, and specifically describe the prevalence of comorbidities, functional impairment and escalations of care.

METHODS

We undertook a single-centre retrospective observational study involving medical record review of a random sample of adults admitted to an ED between February 2018 and January 2019 with suspected sepsis. Descriptive statistics were used with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for key proportions.

RESULTS

We included 509 patients (median age 74 years), of whom 49.3% met the Sepsis-3 criteria. Less than half of the patients were living at home independently (42.5%) or could walk independently (41.5%), 19.3% were care home residents and 89.2% of patients had one or more comorbidity. 22% had a pre-existing do not attempt resuscitation order. 6.5% were referred to intensive care, and 34.3% of the 13.2% who died in-hospital had an escalation plan explicitly documented.

CONCLUSION

Adults with suspected sepsis have substantial functional limitations, comorbidities and treatment directives that should be considered in guidelines, especially recommendations for escalation of care.

Identifying the Sickest During Triage: Using Point-of-Care Severity Scores to Predict Prognosis in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis progresses rapidly and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Bedside risk stratification scores can quickly identify patients at greatest risk of poor outcomes; however, there is lack of consensus on the best scale to use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the ability of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), the National Early Warning System (NEWS2), and the Shock Index-which does not require mental status assessment-to predict poor outcomes among patients with suspected sepsis during triage.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of adults presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) from June 2012 to December 2018 who had blood cultures and intravenous antibiotics within 24 hours.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinical data were collected from the electronic health record. Patients were considered positive at qSOFA ≥2, Shock Index >0.7, or NEWS2 ≥5 scores. We calculated test characteristics and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) to predict in-hospital mortality and ED-to-intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

RESULTS

We included 23,837 ED patients; 1,921(8.1%) were qSOFA-positive, 4,273 (17.9%) Shock Index-positive, and 11,832 (49.6%) NEWS2-positive. There were 1,427 (6.0%) deaths and 3,149 (13.2%) ED-to-ICU admissions in the sample. NEWS2 had the highest sensitivity for in-hospital mortality (76.0%) and ED-to-ICU admission (78.9%). qSOFA had the highest specificity for in-hospital mortality (93.4%) and ED-to-ICU admission (95.2%). Shock Index exhibited the highest AUROC for in-hospital mortality (0.648; 95 CI, 0.635-0.662) and ED-to-ICU admission (0.680; 95% CI, 0.617-0.689). Test characteristics were similar among those with sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

Institution priorities should drive score selection, balancing sensitivity and specificity. In our study, qSOFA was highly specific and NEWS2 was the most sensitive for ruling out patients at high risk. Performance of the Shock Index fell between qSOFA and NEWS2 and could be considered because it is easy to implement.

National Early Warning Score Does Not Accurately Predict Mortality for Patients With Infection Outside the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The prognostic value of the national early warning score (NEWS) in patients with infections remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of NEWS for prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with infections outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for related articles from January 2012 to April 2021. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were pooled by using the bivariate random-effects model. Overall prognostic performance was summarized by using the area under the curve (AUC). We performed subgroup analyses to assess the prognostic accuracy of NEWS in selected populations. Results: A total of 21 studies with 107,008 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS were 0.71 and 0.60. The pooled AUC of NEWS was 0.70, which was similar to quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA, AUC: 0.70) and better than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS, AUC: 0.60). However, the sensitivity (0.55) and AUC (0.63) of NEWS were poor in elder patients. The NEWS of 5 was more sensitive, which was a better threshold for activating urgent assessment and treatment. Conclusions: The NEWS had good diagnostic accuracy for early prediction of mortality in patients with infections outside the ICU, and the sensitivity and specificity were more moderate when compared with qSOFA and SIRS. Insufficient sensitivity and poor performance in the elder population may have limitations as an early warning score for adverse outcomes. NEWS should be used for continuous monitoring rather than a single time point predictive tool.

Los aspectos morales bioéticos y científicos guían las decisiones en el contexto de recursos escasos durante la pandemia por COVID-19

Introducción

Las instituciones de salud podrán verse enfrentadas al desbordamiento en la atención médica y disminución de recursos en tiempos de la pandemia por COVID-19. De ser así tendrán que tomar decisiones basadas en el principio de justicia distributiva para beneficiar a quien más lo necesite y generar así el mayor bien social.

Objetivo

Analizar los aspectos morales, bioéticos y científicos en las decisiones que se toman en el contexto de recursos escasos por la pandemia por COVID-19.

Metodología

Se realizó un análisis y reflexión sobre los aspectos morales, bioéticos y científicos, basados en conceptos éticos reportados en la literatura médica y emitidos durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

Resultados

Para el análisis y reflexión se tomaron en cuenta tres aspectos: 1. El fundamento moral de la decisión (acción moral, dilema ético y conflicto de interés y teorías morales). 2. El fundamento bioético de la decisión (profesión médica, comités de ética hospitalaria, la ética clínica, principios de la bioética). 3. El fundamento científico de la decisión (triaje en la pandemia con sus prioridades, otras escalas de triaje).

Estadística

Por el tipo de estudio de reflexión no se utilizaron medidas estadísticas.

Conclusión

La sensibilidad moral, el razonamiento bioético y el conocimiento científico son fundamentales ante la toma de decisiones en tiempo de escasez y asignación del recurso. Siempre estarán acompañando la decisión de la justicia distributiva, haciendo respetar la dignidad y los derechos de los pacientes a la salud y la muerte digna.

Performance Analysis of the National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial Cohort

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.

DESIGN

We 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.

SETTING

A multisite international inpatient trial.

PATIENTS

A total of 1,062 adult nonpregnant inpatients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia.

INTERVENTIONS

Adaptive 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 RESULTS

For 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).

CONCLUSIONS

In 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.

Predict Score: A New Biological and Clinical Tool to Help Predict Risk of Intensive Care Transfer for COVID-19 Patients

Background: The COVID-19 crisis has strained world health care systems. This study aimed to develop an innovative prediction score using clinical and biological parameters (PREDICT score) to anticipate the need of intensive care of COVID-19 patients already hospitalized in standard medical units. Methods: PREDICT score was based on a training cohort and a validation cohort retrospectively recruited in 2020 in the Marseille University Hospital. Multivariate analyses were performed, including clinical, and biological parameters, comparing a baseline group composed of COVID-19 patients exclusively treated in standard medical units to COVID-19 patients that needed intensive care during their hospitalization. Results: Independent variables included in the PREDICT score were: age, Body Mass Index, Respiratory Rate, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and lactate dehydrogenase. The PREDICT score was able to correctly identify more than 83% of patients that needed intensive care after at least 1 day of standard medical hospitalization. Conclusions: The PREDICT score is a powerful tool for anticipating the intensive care need for COVID-19 patients already hospitalized in a standard medical unit. It shows limitations for patients who immediately need intensive care, but it draws attention to patients who have an important risk of needing intensive care after at least one day of hospitalization.

The comparative ability of commonly used disease severity scores to predict death or a requirement for ICU care in patients hospitalised with possible sepsis in Yangon, Myanmar

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative prognostic utility of commonly used disease prediction scores in adults with presumed community-acquired sepsis in a resource-limited tropical setting.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study was performed on the medical ward of a tertiary-referral hospital in Yangon, Myanmar. The ability of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), quick NEWS (qNEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to predict a complicated inpatient course (death or requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) support) in patients with two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria was determined.

RESULTS

Among the 509 patients, 30 (6%) were HIV-seropositive. The most commonly confirmed diagnoses were tuberculosis (30/509, 5.9%) and measles (26/509, 5.1%). Overall, 75/509 (14.7%) died or required ICU support. All the scores except the qSOFA score, which was inferior, had a similar ability to predict a complicated inpatient course.

CONCLUSIONS

In this resource-limited tropical setting, disease severity scores calculated at presentation using only vital signs-such as the NEWS2 score-identified high-risk sepsis patient as well as the SOFA score, which is calculated at 24 h and which also requires laboratory data. Use of these simple clinical scores can be used to facilitate recognition of the high-risk patient and to optimise the use of finite resources.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990-2019

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the research themes and hotspots of safety signs research between 1990 and 2019 through the scientometric analysis method. In total, 3102 articles of literature from the Web of Science core database were analyzed by the CiteSpace visualization tool and the results were displayed in mapping knowledge domains. The overall characteristics analysis showed that safety sign is an emerging research field in a rapid development stage—81.4% of the literature works were published in the past ten years, and the United States was in the leading position, followed by China and Canada. The keyword co-occurrence analysis indicated that traffic signs and driving safety were the most popular research topics and have been combined with simulation technology in recent years, whereby individual mental health has been added as an influential factor. The journals and category co-citation analysis showed that the safety signs research involved many subjects, mainly engineering, transportation and public safety. The results indicated that the safety signs research is multi-disciplinary, and it will continue to develop in various scientific domains in the future. The conclusions can provide help and reference for potential readers, as well as help with the sustainable development of safety signs research.

Randomised controlled trials for COVID-19: evaluation of optimal randomisation methodologies-need for data validation of the completed trials and to improve ongoing and future randomised trial designs

During the emerging COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, initially there were no proven treatment options. With the release of randomised controlled trial (RCT) results, we are beginning to see possible treatment options for COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial showed an absolute risk reduction in mortality by 2.8% with dexamethasone, and the ACTT-1 trial showed that treatment with remdesivir reduced the time to recovery by 4 days. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir did not show any mortality benefit in either the RECOVERY or World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trials. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Brazilian HCQ trials did not show any benefit for HCQ based on the seven-point ordinal scale outcomes. The randomisation methodologies utilised in these controlled trials and the quality of published data were reviewed to examine their adaptability to treat patients. We found that the randomisation methodologies of these trials were suboptimal for matching the studied groups based on disease severity among critically-ill hospitalised COVID-19 patients with high mortality rates. The published literature is very limited regarding the disease severity metrics among the compared groups and failed to show that the data are without fatal sampling errors and sampling biases. We also found that there is a definite need for the validation of data in these trials along with additional important disease severity metrics to ensure that the trials' conclusions are accurate. We also propose proper randomisation methodologies for the design of RCTs for COVID-19 as well as guidance for the publication of COVID-19 trial results.

Persistently elevated early warning scores and lactate identifies patients at high risk of mortality in suspected sepsis

OBJECTIVE

In the UK, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is recommended as part of screening for suspicion of sepsis. Is a change in NEWS a better predictor of mortality than an isolated score when screening for suspicion of sepsis?.

METHODS

A prospectively gathered cohort of 1233 adults brought in by ambulance to two UK nonspecialist hospitals, with suspicion of sepsis at emergency department (ED) triage (2015-2017) was analysed. Associations with 30-day mortality and ICU admission rate were compared between groups with an isolated NEWS ≥5 points prehospital and those with persistently elevated NEWS prehospital, in ED and at ward admission. The effect of adding the ED (venous or arterial) lactate was also assessed.

RESULTS

Mortality increased if the NEWS persisted ≥5 at ED arrival 22.1% vs. 10.2% [odds ratio (OR) 2.5 (1.6-4.0); P < 0.001]. Adding an ED lactate ≥2 mmol/L was associated with an increase in mortality greater than for NEWS alone [32.2% vs. 13.3%, OR 3.1 (2.2-4.1); P < 0.001], and increased ICU admission [13.9% vs. 3.7%, OR 3.1 (2.2-4.3); P < 0.001]. If NEWS remained ≥5 at ward admission (predominantly within 4 h of ED arrival), mortality was 32.1% vs. 14.3%, [OR 2.8 (2.1-3.9); P < 0.001] and still higher if accompanied by an elevated ED lactate [42.1% vs. 16.4%, OR 3.7 (2.6-5.3); P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Persistently elevated NEWS, from prehospital through the ED to the time of ward admission, combined with an elevated ED lactate identifies patients with suspicion of sepsis at highest risk of in-hospital mortality.

The performance of the National Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score 2 in hospitalised patients infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

INTRODUCTION

Since the introduction of the UK's National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its modification, NEWS2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a worldwide pandemic. NEWS and NEWS2 have good predictive abilities in patients with other infections and sepsis, however there is little evidence of their performance in COVID-19.

METHODS

Using receiver-operating characteristics analyses, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to evaluate the performance of NEWS or NEWS2 to discriminate the combined outcome of either death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 24 h of a vital sign set in five cohorts (COVID-19 POSITIVE, n = 405; COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, n = 1716; COVID-19 NOT TESTED, n = 2686; CONTROL 2018, n = 6273; CONTROL 2019, n = 6523).

RESULTS

The AUROC values for NEWS or NEWS2 for the combined outcome were: COVID-19 POSITIVE, 0.882 (0.868-0.895); COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, 0.875 (0.861-0.89); COVID-19 NOT TESTED, 0.876 (0.85-0.902); CONTROL 2018, 0.894 (0.884-0.904); CONTROL 2019, 0.842 (0.829-0.855).

CONCLUSIONS

The finding that NEWS or NEWS2 performance was good and similar in all five cohorts (range = 0.842-0.894) suggests that amendments to NEWS or NEWS2, such as the addition of new covariates or the need to change the weighting of existing parameters, are unnecessary when evaluating patients with COVID-19. Our results support the national and international recommendations for the use of NEWS or NEWS2 for the assessment of acute-illness severity in patients with COVID-19.

[The early use of sepsis scores to predict respiratory failure and mortality in non-ICU patients with COVID-19]

El presente estudio retrospectivo observacional tiene como objetivo analizar la utilidad de las escalas SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), qSOFA (Quick SOFA), NEWS (National Early Warning Score ) y Quick NEWS para predecir el fallo respiratorio y la muerte en pacientes con COVID-19 atendidos fuera de la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). Se incluyeron 237 adultos con COVID-19 hospitalizados seguidos durante un mes o hasta su fallecimiento. El fallo respiratorio se definió como un cociente PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg o la necesidad de ventilación mecánica. Setenta y siete pacientes (32,5%) desarrollaron fallo ventilatorio; 29 (12%) precisaron ingreso en UCI, y 49 fallecieron (20,7%). La discriminación del fallo ventilatorio fue algo mayor con la puntuación NEWS, seguida de la SOFA. En cuanto a la mortalidad, la puntuación SOFA fue más exacta que las otras escalas. En conclusión, las escalas de sepsis son útiles para predecir el fallo respiratorio y la muerte en COVID-19. Una puntuación ≥ 4 en la escala NEWS sería el mejor punto de corte para predecir fallo respiratorio.

NEWS and qSIRS superior to qSOFA in the prediction of 30-day mortality in emergency department patients in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

We aim to compare the prognostic value of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the previous Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and along with their combinations in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This single-centre prospective study recruited a convenience sample of unselected ED patients triaged as category 2 (Emergency) and 3 (Urgent). Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were performed to determine the Area Under the Curve (AUC), along with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios for the various scores.

RESULTS

Of 1253 patients recruited, overall 30-day mortality was 5.7%. The prognostic value for prediction of 30-day mortality, with AUCs for qSOFA ≥2, SIRS ≥2, NEWS ≥5, qSIRS (qSOFA + SIRS) ≥2 and NSIRS (NEWS + SIRS) ≥5 of 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.64 (95%CI 0.62-0.67) and 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.63), respectively. Using pairwise comparisons of ROC curves, NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unselected emergency and urgent ED patients, the prognostic value for NEWS and qSIRS were greater than qSOFA, Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients. Key messages NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality in ED patients. Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients.

Predicting intensive care unit admission and death for COVID-19 patients in the emergency department using early warning scores

AIMS

To identify the most accurate early warning score (EWS) for predicting an adverse outcome in COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

In adult consecutive patients admitted (March 1-April 15, 2020) to the ED of a major referral centre for COVID-19, we retrospectively calculated NEWS, NEWS2, NEWS-C, MEWS, qSOFA, and REMS from physiological variables measured on arrival. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of each EWS for predicting admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death at 48 h and 7 days were calculated.

RESULTS

We included 334 patients (119 [35.6%] females, median age 66 [54-78] years). At 7 days, the rates of ICU admission and death were 56/334 (17%) and 26/334 (7.8%), respectively. NEWS was the most accurate predictor of ICU admission within 7 days (AUROC 0.783 [95% CI, 0.735-0.826]; sensitivity 71.4 [57.8-82.7]%; NPV 93.1 [89.8-95.3]%), while REMS was the most accurate predictor of death within 7 days (AUROC 0.823 [0.778-0.863]; sensitivity 96.1 [80.4-99.9]%; NPV 99.4[96.2-99.9]%). Similar results were observed for ICU admission and death at 48 h. NEWS and REMS were as accurate as the triage system used in our ED. MEWS and qSOFA had the lowest overall accuracy for both outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In our single-centre cohort of COVID-19 patients, NEWS and REMS measured on ED arrival were the most sensitive predictors of 7-day ICU admission or death. EWS could be useful to identify patients with low risk of clinical deterioration.

Evaluation of the Risk Prediction Tools for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China: A Single-Centered, Retrospective, Observational Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of National Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score 2, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, Confusion, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, Age 65 score, and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment on predicting in-hospital death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Design:

A retrospective, observational study.

Setting:

Single center, West Campus of Wuhan Union hospital-a temporary center to manage critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Patients:

A total of 673 consecutive adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 between January 30, 2020, and March 14, 2020.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main Results:

Data on demography, comorbidities, vital signs, mental status, oxygen saturation, and use of supplemental oxygen at admission to the ward were collected from medical records and used to score National Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score 2, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, Confusion, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, Age 65 score, and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment. Total number of patients was 673 (51% male) and median (interquartile range) age was 61 years (50–69 yr). One-hundred twenty-one patients died (18%). For predicting in-hospital death, the area under the receiver operating characteristics (95% CI) for National Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score 2, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, Confusion, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, Age 65 score, and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment were 0.882 (0.847–0.916), 0.880 (0.845–0.914), 0.839 (0.800–0.879), 0.766 (0.718–0.814), and 0.694 (0.641–0.746), respectively. Among the parameters of National Early Warning Score, the oxygen saturation score was found to be the most significant predictor of in-hospital death. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (95% CI) for oxygen saturation score was 0.875 (0.834–0.916).

Conclusions:

In this single-center study, the discrimination of National Early Warning Score/National Early Warning Score 2 for predicting mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ward was found to be superior to Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, Confusion, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, Age 65 score, and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment. Peripheral oxygen saturation could independently predict in-hospital death in these patients. Further validation of our finding in multiple settings is needed to determine its applicability for coronavirus disease 2019.

Outcome prediction value of National Early Warning Score in septic patients with community-acquired pneumonia in emergency department: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the accuracy of National Early Warning Score (NEWS) in predicting clinical outcomes (28-day mortality, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and mechanical ventilation use) for septic patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) compared with other commonly used severity scores (CURB65, Pneumonia Severity Index [PSI], Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], quick SOFA [qSOFA], and Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis [MEDS]) and admission lactate level.

METHODS

Adult patients diagnosed with CAP admitted between January 2017 and May 2019 with admission SOFA ≥2 from baseline were enrolled. Demographic characteristics were collected. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality after admission, and the secondary outcome included ICU admission and mechanical ventilation use. Outcome prediction value of parameters above was compared using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Cox regression analyses were carried out to determine the risk factors for the 28-day mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted and compared using optimal cut-off values of qSOFA and NEWS.

RESULTS

Among the 340 enrolled patients, 90 patients were dead after a 28-day follow-up, 62 patients were admitted to ICU, and 84 patients underwent mechanical ventilation. Among single predictors, NEWS achieved the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve in predicting the 28-day mortality (0.861), ICU admission (0.895), and use of mechanical ventilation (0.873). NEWS+lactate, similar to MEDS+lactate, outperformed other combinations of severity score and admission lactate in predicting the 28-day mortality (AUROC 0.866) and ICU admission (AUROC 0.905), while NEWS+lactate did not outperform other combinations in predicting mechanical ventilation (AUROC 0.886). Admission lactate only improved the predicting performance of CURB65 and qSOFA in predicting the 28-day mortality and ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

NEWS could be a valuable predictor in septic patients with CAP in emergency departments. Admission lactate did not predict well the outcomes or improve the severity scores. A qSOFA ≥2 and a NEWS ≥9 were strongly associated with the 28-day mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation of septic patients with CAP in the emergency departments.

Relationships between the National Early Warning Score 2, clinical worry and patient outcome at discharge: Retrospective observational study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the performance of the National Early Warning Score 2 and composite score for clinical worry in identifying patients at risk of clinical deterioration, and to determine relationships between National Early Warning Score 2, clinical worry score and patient outcome at discharge.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of early warning systems depends on patient population and care settings. Based on a theoretical framework on factors affecting clinical deterioration and patient outcomes, studies exploring the relationship between early warning systems and patient outcomes at discharge are sparse.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

METHODS

A random sample of 732 medical records were reviewed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to evaluate predictive abilities regarding the events of unanticipated in-hospital mortality, unplanned intensive care unit/ higher dependency bed admission and cardiac arrest. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to determine relationships between National Early Warning Score 2, clinical worry score and patient outcome. Reporting followed the STROBE checklist.

RESULTS

National Early Warning Score 2 and clinical worry score significantly predicted the events within 24 hr of the assessment. After controlling for other patient, treatment and organisational characteristics, National Early Warning Score 2 was a significant factor associated with patient outcome, but clinical worry score was not. Specifically, patients at high risk based on National Early Warning Score 2 were less likely to have improved outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

National Early Warning Score 2 and clinical worry score performed well for predicting deteriorating condition of patients. National Early Warning Score 2 was significantly associated with patient outcome. It can be used for efficient patient management for safe, quality care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

National Early Warning Score 2 can be used for early assessment of not only clinical deterioration but also patient outcome and provide timely intervention, when coupled with clinical worry score.

The management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus causing severe acute respiratory disease occurred in Wuhan, China. It is an emerging infectious disease with widespread and rapid infectiousness. The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern on 31 January 2020. Severe COVID-19 patients should be managed and treated in a critical care unit. Performing a chest X-ray/CT can judge the severity of the disease. The management of COVID-19 patients includes epidemiological risk and patient isolation; treatment entails general supportive care, respiratory support, symptomatic treatment, nutritional support, psychological intervention, etc. The prognosis of the patients depends upon the severity of the disease, the patient's age, the underlying diseases of the patients, and the patient's overall medical condition. The management of COVID-19 should focus on early diagnosis, immediate isolation, general and optimized supportive care, and infection prevention and control.

Early warning scores for detecting deterioration in adult hospital patients: systematic review and critical appraisal of methodology

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview and critical appraisal of early warning scores for adult hospital patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase until June 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Studies describing the development or external validation of an early warning score for adult hospital inpatients.

RESULTS

13 171 references were screened and 95 articles were included in the review. 11 studies were development only, 23 were development and external validation, and 61 were external validation only. Most early warning scores were developed for use in the United States (n=13/34, 38%) and the United Kingdom (n=10/34, 29%). Death was the most frequent prediction outcome for development studies (n=10/23, 44%) and validation studies (n=66/84, 79%), with different time horizons (the most frequent was 24 hours). The most common predictors were respiratory rate (n=30/34, 88%), heart rate (n=28/34, 83%), oxygen saturation, temperature, and systolic blood pressure (all n=24/34, 71%). Age (n=13/34, 38%) and sex (n=3/34, 9%) were less frequently included. Key details of the analysis populations were often not reported in development studies (n=12/29, 41%) or validation studies (n=33/84, 39%). Small sample sizes and insufficient numbers of event patients were common in model development and external validation studies. Missing data were often discarded, with just one study using multiple imputation. Only nine of the early warning scores that were developed were presented in sufficient detail to allow individualised risk prediction. Internal validation was carried out in 19 studies, but recommended approaches such as bootstrapping or cross validation were rarely used (n=4/19, 22%). Model performance was frequently assessed using discrimination (development n=18/22, 82%; validation n=69/84, 82%), while calibration was seldom assessed (validation n=13/84, 15%). All included studies were rated at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Early warning scores are widely used prediction models that are often mandated in daily clinical practice to identify early clinical deterioration in hospital patients. However, many early warning scores in clinical use were found to have methodological weaknesses. Early warning scores might not perform as well as expected and therefore they could have a detrimental effect on patient care. Future work should focus on following recommended approaches for developing and evaluating early warning scores, and investigating the impact and safety of using these scores in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017053324.

Clinical Examination for the Prediction of Mortality in the Critically Ill: The Simple Intensive Care Studies-I

OBJECTIVES

Caregivers use clinical examination to timely recognize deterioration of a patient, yet data on the prognostic value of clinical examination are inconsistent. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we evaluated the association of clinical examination findings with 90-day mortality in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Prospective single-center cohort study.

SETTING

ICU of a single tertiary care level hospital between March 27, 2015, and July 22, 2017.

PATIENTS

All consecutive adults acutely admitted to the ICU and expected to stay for at least 24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

A protocolized clinical examination of 19 clinical signs conducted within 24 hours of admission.

MEASUREMENTS MAIN RESULTS

Independent predictors of 90-day mortality were identified using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Model performance was compared with established prognostic risk scores using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Robustness of our findings was tested by internal bootstrap validation and adjustment of the threshold for statistical significance. A total of 1,075 patients were included, of whom 298 patients (28%) had died at 90-day follow-up. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age and norepinephrine infusion rate demonstrated that the combination of higher respiratory rate, higher systolic blood pressure, lower central temperature, altered consciousness, and decreased urine output was independently associated with 90-day mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78). Clinical examination had a similar discriminative value as compared with the Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79; p = 0.29) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV (using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80; p = 0.16) and was significantly better than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical examination has reasonable discriminative value for assessing 90-day mortality in acutely admitted ICU patients. In our study population, a single, protocolized clinical examination had similar prognostic abilities compared with the Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV and outperformed the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

Comparison of Early Warning Scoring Systems for Hospitalized Patients With and Without Infection at Risk for In-Hospital Mortality and Transfer to the Intensive Care Unit

IMPORTANCE

Risk scores used in early warning systems exist for general inpatients and patients with suspected infection outside the intensive care unit (ICU), but their relative performance is incompletely characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of tools used to determine points-based risk scores among all hospitalized patients, including those with and without suspected infection, for identifying those at risk for death and/or ICU transfer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a cohort design, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted in 21 California and 7 Illinois hospitals between 2006 and 2018 among adult inpatients outside the ICU using points-based scores from 5 commonly used tools: National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Between the Flags (BTF), Quick Sequential Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). Data analysis was conducted from February 2019 to January 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Risk model discrimination was assessed in each state for predicting in-hospital mortality and the combined outcome of ICU transfer or mortality with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Stratified analyses were also conducted based on suspected infection.

RESULTS

The study included 773 477 hospitalized patients in California (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [17.6] years; 416 605 women [53.9%]) and 713 786 hospitalized patients in Illinois (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [19.9] years; 384 830 women [53.9%]). The NEWS exhibited the highest discrimination for mortality (AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.87 in California vs AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.86 in Illinois), followed by the MEWS (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.83-0.84 in California vs AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85 in Illinois), qSOFA (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.78-0.79 in California vs AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.78 in Illinois), SIRS (AUC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.76-0.76 in California vs AUC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76 in Illinois), and BTF (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.73-0.73 in California vs AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.74 in Illinois). At specific decision thresholds, the NEWS outperformed the SIRS and qSOFA at all 28 hospitals either by reducing the percentage of at-risk patients who need to be screened by 5% to 20% or increasing the percentage of adverse outcomes identified by 3% to 25%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In all hospitalized patients evaluated in this study, including those meeting criteria for suspected infection, the NEWS appeared to display the highest discrimination. Our results suggest that, among commonly used points-based scoring systems, determining the NEWS for inpatient risk stratification could identify patients with and without infection at high risk of mortality.

Using sepsis scores in emergency department and ward patients

Sepsis-3, published in 2016, defined sepsis as 'life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection'. Instead of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), calculating the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was recommended. The complexity of SOFA also led to the introduction of quick SOFA (qSOFA) as a bedside tool. The simultaneous removal of SIRS and introduction of qSOFA belies their significant differences, with SIRS having a high sensitivity but very low specificity, and qSOFA being very specific for a poor outcome, but having a lower sensitivity than SIRS. In the UK, the variables within qSOFA are collected on a regular and repeated basis, along with additional variables, as part of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). A knowledge of SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS is of value in assessing patients with suspected sepsis, as discussed in this article.

Existe-t-il une plus-value du lactate artériel comparé au lactate veineux dans la prise en charge des patients infectés aux urgences ?

Introduction : La mesure du lactate est une étape cruciale dans l’évaluation des patients septiques aux urgences. Bien que la référence soit le prélèvement artériel, celui-ci est inadapté à la médecine d’urgence, et le prélèvement veineux semble être une alternative potentielle. Ce travail s’est intéressé à décrire la concordance entre Lact-A et Lact-V, et à comparer l’apport pronostique du Lact-A comparativement au Lact-V chez les patients infectés aux urgences.

Matériels et méthode : Étude de cohorte prospective observationnelle menée au centre hospitalier universitaire de Nice entre 2015 et 2017. Ont été inclus les patients présentant une suspicion d’infection avec au moins deux critères cliniques de SIRS. Le lactate a été mesuré de manière concomitante par prélèvement veineux et artériel.

Résultats : Au total, 354 couples Lact-A/Lact-V ont été analysés. Le biais moyen entre les valeurs artérielles et veineuses était de 0,65 ± 0,89 mmol/l, avec des limites d’agrément à 95 % de –2,4 + 1,1 mmol/l. Un Lact-V supérieur à 2,3 mmol/l permettait de confirmer un Lact-A supérieur à 2 mmol/l avec une sensibilité de 94,1 % (IC 95 % : [87,8– 97,3]) et une spécificité de 91,7 % (IC 95 % : [87,6–94,5]). De plus, un Lact-V inférieur à 2 mmol/l permettait de confirmer un Lact-A inférieur à 2 mmol/l avec une VPP de 99 %. L’apport pronostique du Lact-V était globalement similaire au Lact-A mais restait relativement faible.

Conclusion : La lactatémie veineuse apporte des arguments équivalents pour l’évaluation pronostique des patients infectés aux urgences. Par ailleurs, un Lact-V inférieur à 2 mmol/l permet d’affirmer un Lact-A normal permettant de surseoir au prélèvement artériel.

Failure of vital sign normalization is more strongly associated than single measures with mortality and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Modified Early Warning Systems (MEWS) scores offer proxies for morbidity and mortality that are easily acquired, but there are limited data on what changing MEWS scores within the ED indicate. We examined the correlation of changing MEWS scores during resuscitation in the ED and in-hospital morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis on medical ED patients with simplified MEWS scores (without urine output or mental status) admitted to a single academic tertiary care center over one year. Triage-to-Last delta MEWS score and Triage-to-Max delta MEWS scores were calculated and correlated to in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, length of stay (LOS) and diagnosis of sepsis.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 8322 ED patients with an ICU admission rate of 17% and a mortality rate of 2%. Every point of worsened MEWS after triage was more strongly associated with all-cause mortality (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.96-2.97) than triage MEWS alone (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.23-1.44; p < 0.001). Likewise, each point of worsened MEWS was associated with increased odds of ICU admission (Triage-to-Last: OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.92-2.33 and Triage-to-Max: OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.45-1.60, respectively). Among patients with suspected infection, similar associations are found.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic vital signs in the emergency department, as categorized by delta MEWS, and failure to normalize abnormalities, were associated with increased mortality, ICU admission, LOS, and the diagnosis of sepsis. Our results suggest that MEWS scores that do not normalize, from triage onward, are more strongly associated with outcome than any single score.

Impact of using data from electronic protocols in nursing performance management: A qualitative interview study

Aim

To explore the impact of using electronic data in performance management to improve nursing compliance with a protocol.

Background

Electronic data are increasingly used to monitor protocol compliance but little is known about the impact on nurses’ practice in hospital wards.

Method

Seventeen acute hospital nursing staff participated in semi‐structured interviews about compliance with an early warning score (EWS) protocol delivered by a bedside electronic handheld device.

Results

Before electronic EWS data was used to monitor compliance, staff combined protocol‐led actions with clinical judgement. However, some observations were missed to reduce noise and disruption at night. After compliance monitoring was introduced, observations were sometimes covertly omitted using a loophole. Interviewees described a loss of autonomy but acknowledged the EWS system sometimes flagged unexpected patient deterioration.

Conclusions

Introducing automated electronic systems to support nursing tasks can decrease nursing burden but remove the ability to record legitimate reasons for missing observations. This can result in covert resistance that could reduce patient safety.

Implications for nursing management

Providing the ability to log legitimate reasons for missing observations would allow nurses to balance professional judgement with the use of electronic data in performance management of protocol compliance.

Comparative prognostic accuracy of sepsis scores for hospital mortality in adults with suspected infection in non-ICU and ICU at an academic public hospital

Background

Sepsis is a global healthcare challenge and reliable tools are needed to identify patients and stratify their risk. Here we compare the prognostic accuracy of the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and national early warning system (NEWS) scores for hospital mortality and other outcomes amongst patients with suspected infection at an academic public hospital.

Measurements and main results

10,981 adult patients with suspected infection hospitalized at a U.S. academic public hospital between 2011–2017 were retrospectively identified. Primary exposures were the maximum SIRS, qSOFA, SOFA, and NEWS scores upon inclusion. Comparative prognostic accuracy for the primary outcome of hospital mortality was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Secondary outcomes included mortality in ICU versus non-ICU settings, ICU transfer, ICU length of stay (LOS) >3 days, and hospital LOS >7 days. Adjusted analyses were performed using a model of baseline risk for hospital mortality. 774 patients (7.1%) died in hospital. Discrimination for hospital mortality was highest for SOFA (AUROC 0.90 [95% CI, 0.89–0.91]), followed by NEWS (AUROC 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84–0.86]), qSOFA (AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83–0.85]), and SIRS (AUROC 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78–0.81]; p<0.001 for all comparisons). NEWS (AUROC 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93–0.95]) outperformed other scores in predicting ICU transfer (qSOFA AUROC 0.89 [95% CI, 0.87–0.91]; SOFA AUROC, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.82–0.87]; SIRS AUROC 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79–0.83]; p<0.001 for all comparisons). NEWS (AUROC 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85–0.86]) was also superior to other scores in predicting ICU LOS >3 days (SOFA AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83–0.85; qSOFA AUROC, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83–0.84]; SIRS AUROC, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.74–0.76]; p<0.002 for all comparisons).

Conclusions

Multivariate prediction scores, such as SOFA and NEWS, had greater prognostic accuracy than qSOFA or SIRS for hospital mortality, ICU transfer, and ICU length of stay. Complex sepsis scores may offer enhanced prognostic performance as compared to simple sepsis scores in inpatient hospital settings where more complex scores can be readily calculated.

The epidemiology and clinical features of rickettsial diseases in North Queensland, Australia: Implications for patient identification and management

Background

Rickettsial infections are a common cause of hospitalization in tropical settings, although early diagnosis is challenging in the rural locations where these infections are usually seen.

Methods

This retrospective, clinical audit of microbiologically-confirmed cases of scrub typhus or spotted fever group (SFG) rickettsial infection between 1997 and 2016 was performed a tertiary referral hospital in tropical Australia. Clinical, laboratory and radiological findings at presentation were correlated with the patients’ subsequent clinical course.

Results

There were 135 locally-acquired cases (95 scrub typhus, 37 SFG, 3 undifferentiated). There were nine hospitalizations during the first 5 years of the study period and 81 in the last 5 years (p for trend = 0.003). Eighteen (13%) of the 135 cases required ICU admission, all of whom were adults. A greater proportion of patients with SFG infection required ICU support (8/37 (22%) compared with 10/95 (11%) scrub typhus cases), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.10). Three (8%) of the 37 patients with SFG infection had severe disease (1 died, 2 developed permanent disability) versus 0/95 scrub typhus patients (p = 0.02). Adults with a high admission qSOFA score (≥2) had an odds ratio (OR) of 19 (95% CI:4.8–74.5) for subsequent ICU admission (p<0.001); adults with a high NEWS2 score (≥7) had an OR of 14.3 (95% CI:4.5–45.32) for ICU admission (p<0.001). A patient’s respiratory rate at presentation had strong prognostic utility: if an adult had an admission respiratory rate <22 breaths/minute, the negative predictive value for subsequent ICU admission was 95% (95% CI 88–99).

Conclusions

In the well-resourced Australian health system outcomes are excellent, but the local burden of rickettsial disease appears to be increasing and the clinical phenotype of SFG infections may be more severe than previously believed. Simple, clinical assessment on admission has prognostic utility and may be used to guide management.

Rickettsial infections are a common cause of hospitalization in tropical settings, although early, definitive diagnosis is challenging in the rural and remote locations where they are usually seen. It is important to recognise rickettsial infections early in their disease course as they can lead to life-threatening multi-organ failure if specific anti-rickettsial antimicrobial therapy is not prescribed promptly. In tropical Australia, scrub typhus and spotted fever group (SFG) rickettsiae are the dominant rickettsial pathogens and this twenty-year retrospective series examines the clinical and laboratory findings which might facilitate their recognition. The study highlights the infections’ increasing local clinical burden and reports that over 20% of the SFG cases in the series required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, suggesting that severe SFG disease may be more common than previously believed. Simple, clinical prediction scores—calculated at presentation—identified patients who would subsequently require ICU admission. Importantly, they were also able to identify patients at low risk of disease progression. These entirely clinical scores—which can be calculated rapidly at the bedside—have the potential to facilitate the management of patients with scrub typhus and SFG infection, particularly in resource-limited settings which have the greatest burden of disease.

Epidemiology of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria in Undifferentiated Patients and Association With Suspected Infection and Sepsis

BACKGROUND

The role of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria in sepsis screening and management is controversial, particularly as they were derived only in patients with suspected infection. We examined the epidemiology and prognostic value of qSOFA in undifferentiated patients.

METHODS

We identified patients with ≥ 2 qSOFA criteria within 1 day of admission among all adults admitted to 85 US hospitals from 2012 to 2015 and assessed for suspected infection (using clinical cultures and administration of antibiotics) and sepsis (as defined on the basis of Sepsis-3 criteria). We also examined the discrimination of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality among patients with and without suspected infection, using regression models.

RESULTS

Of 1,004,347 hospitalized patients, 271,500 (27.0%) were qSOFA-positive on admission. Compared with qSOFA-negative patients, qSOFA-positive patients were older (median age, 65 vs 58 years), required ICU admission more often (28.5% vs 6.5%), and had higher mortality (6.7% vs 0.8%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Sensitivities of qSOFA for suspected infection and sepsis were 41.3% (95% CI, 41.1%-41.5%) and 62.8% (95% CI, 62.4%-63.1%), respectively; positive predictive values were 31.0% (95% CI, 30.8%-31.1%) and 17.4% (95% CI, 17.2%-17.5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for mortality was lower for qSOFA in patients with suspected infection vs those without (0.814 vs 0.875; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one in three patients who are qSOFA-positive on admission has suspected infection, and one in six has sepsis. qSOFA also has low sensitivity for identifying suspected infection and sepsis, and its prognostic significance is not specific to infection. More sensitive and specific tools for sepsis screening and risk stratification are needed.