Herridge Margaret S
University Health Network, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Clin Chest Med. 2003 Dec;24(4):751-62. doi: 10.1016/s0272-5231(03)00094-7.
Prognostic scoring systems remain important in clinical practice. They enable us to characterize our patient populations with robust measures for predicted mortality. This allows us to audit our own experience in the context of institutional quality control measures and facilitates, albeit imperfectly, comparisons across units and patient populations. Practically, they provide an objective means to characterize case-mix and this helps to quantify resource needs when negotiating with hospital administrators for funding. Prognostic scores also help to stratify patient populations for research purposes. To be used accurately and effectively, one must have a good understanding of the limitations that are intrinsic to these prognostic systems. It is important to understand the details of their derivation and validation. The population of patients that is used to develop the models may not be relevant to your patient population. The model may have been derived several years before and may no longer reflect current practice patterns and treatment. These models may become obsolete over time. As with all scoring systems, there are potential problems with misclassification and more serious, systematic error, in data collection. One needs to rigorously adhere to guidelines about how these data are to be collected and processed; the persons who collect the data require regular updates and ongoing training. In their current form, the systems should not be used to prognosticate in individual patients, nor should they be used to define medical futility. The prognostic models should be viewed as being in evolution. Many patient and ICU characteristics that seem to have an important impact on mortality have yet to be incorporated into any of the current models. As an example, these may include the genetic characteristics of the patients and the ICU's organizational structure and process of care [51, 52]. Because the organ dysfunction measures are able to be obtained daily they give a much more complete understanding of the patient's entire ICU course as opposed to the initial 24-hour period. Daily scores also help to capture the intensity of resource use and may help us gain a better understanding of what is truly ICU-acquired organ dysfunction. These measures may also be used for research to better characterize the natural history and course of a certain disease group or population. Also, they may be used in innovative ways to predict ICU mortality and post-ICU long-term morbidity. These current and developing applications will help us to further understand the link between ICU severity of illness and long-term morbidity as we move beyond survival as the sole measure of ICU outcome.
预后评分系统在临床实践中仍然很重要。它们使我们能够用预测死亡率的可靠指标来描述我们的患者群体。这使我们能够在机构质量控制措施的背景下审视我们自己的经验,并且尽管并不完美,但有助于跨科室和患者群体进行比较。实际上,它们提供了一种客观的方法来描述病例组合情况,这有助于在与医院管理人员协商资金时量化资源需求。预后评分也有助于为研究目的对患者群体进行分层。为了准确有效地使用,必须充分了解这些预后系统固有的局限性。了解其推导和验证的细节很重要。用于开发模型的患者群体可能与你的患者群体不相关。该模型可能是几年前推导出来的,可能不再反映当前的实践模式和治疗方法。随着时间的推移,这些模型可能会过时。与所有评分系统一样,在数据收集方面存在误分类以及更严重的系统误差等潜在问题。人们需要严格遵守关于如何收集和处理这些数据的指南;收集数据的人员需要定期更新知识并持续接受培训。就目前的形式而言,这些系统不应被用于预测个体患者的预后,也不应被用于界定医疗无效。预后模型应被视为处于不断发展之中。许多似乎对死亡率有重要影响的患者和重症监护病房(ICU)特征尚未纳入任何当前模型。例如,这些可能包括患者的基因特征以及ICU的组织结构和护理流程[51,52]。由于器官功能障碍指标能够每天获取,与最初的24小时相比,它们能让我们更全面地了解患者在整个ICU期间的情况。每日评分也有助于掌握资源使用强度,并可能帮助我们更好地理解真正的ICU获得性器官功能障碍。这些指标也可用于研究,以更好地描述某一疾病群体或人群的自然史和病程。此外,它们可以以创新的方式用于预测ICU死亡率和ICU后的长期发病率。随着我们超越将生存作为ICU结局的唯一衡量标准,这些当前和正在发展的应用将帮助我们进一步理解ICU疾病严重程度与长期发病率之间的联系。