Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
RML Specialty Hospital, Chicago, IL.
Crit Care Med. 2019 Dec;47(12):e962-e965. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004026.
Early warning scores were developed to identify high-risk patients on the hospital wards. Research on early warning scores has focused on patients in short-term acute care hospitals, but there are other settings, such as long-term acute care hospitals, where these tools could be useful. However, the accuracy of early warning scores in long-term acute care hospitals is unknown.
Observational cohort study.
Two long-term acute care hospitals in Illinois from January 2002 to September 2017.
Admitted adult long-term acute care hospital patients.
None.
Demographic characteristics, vital signs, laboratory values, nursing flowsheet data, and outcomes data were collected from the electronic health record. The accuracy of individual variables, the Modified Early Warning Score, the National Early Warning Score version 2, and our previously developed electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage score were compared for predicting the need for acute hospital transfer or death using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 12,497 patient admissions were included, with 3,550 experiencing the composite outcome. The median age was 65 (interquartile range, 54-74), 46% were female, and the median length of stay in the long-term acute care hospital was 27 days (interquartile range, 17-40 d), with an 8% in-hospital mortality. Laboratory values were the best predictors, with blood urea nitrogen being the most accurate (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.63) followed by albumin, bilirubin, and WBC count (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.61). Systolic blood pressure was the most accurate vital sign (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.60). Electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.72) was significantly more accurate than National Early Warning Score version 2 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.66) and Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.65; p < 0.01 for all pairwise comparisons).
In this retrospective cohort study, we found that the electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage score was significantly more accurate than Modified Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score version 2 for predicting acute hospital transfer and mortality. Because laboratory values were more predictive than vital signs and the average length of stay in an long-term acute care hospital is much longer than short-term acute hospitals, developing a score specific to the long-term acute care hospital population would likely further improve accuracy, thus allowing earlier identification of high-risk patients for potentially life-saving interventions.
预警评分旨在识别医院病房中的高危患者。对预警评分的研究主要集中在短期急性护理医院的患者,但在长期急性护理医院等其他环境中,这些工具可能会很有用。然而,预警评分在长期急性护理医院的准确性尚不清楚。
观察性队列研究。
伊利诺伊州的两家长期急性护理医院,时间为 2002 年 1 月至 2017 年 9 月。
成年长期急性护理医院患者入院。
无。
从电子健康记录中收集人口统计学特征、生命体征、实验室值、护理流程表数据和结局数据。使用接受者操作特征曲线下的面积比较个体变量、改良早期预警评分、国家早期预警评分 2 版和我们之前开发的电子心搏骤停风险分级评分预测急性医院转科或死亡的准确性。共纳入 12497 例患者入院,其中 3550 例发生复合结局。中位年龄为 65 岁(四分位间距,54-74 岁),46%为女性,长期急性护理医院的中位住院时间为 27 天(四分位间距,17-40 天),院内死亡率为 8%。实验室值是最好的预测指标,其中血尿素氮最准确(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积为 0.63),其次是白蛋白、胆红素和白细胞计数(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积为 0.61)。收缩压是最准确的生命体征(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积为 0.60)。电子心搏骤停风险分级(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积为 0.72)明显比国家早期预警评分 2 版(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积为 0.66)和改良早期预警评分(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积为 0.65;所有两两比较的 p 值均<0.01)更准确。
在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们发现电子心搏骤停风险分级评分预测急性医院转科和死亡率的准确性明显优于改良早期预警评分和国家早期预警评分 2 版。由于实验室值比生命体征更具预测性,且长期急性护理医院的平均住院时间比短期急性医院长得多,因此为长期急性护理医院人群开发特定的评分可能会进一步提高准确性,从而更早地识别高危患者,以便进行潜在的挽救生命的干预。