Tom E F Abbott1, Nidhi Vaid2, Dorothy Ip3, Nicholas Cron4, Matt Wells5, Hew D T Torrance6, Julian Emmanuel7. 1. Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. Electronic address: t.abbott@qmul.ac.uk. 2. Consultant in Acute Medicine, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow HA1 1UJ, UK. 3. Consultant in Acute Medicine, Whittington Health, N19 5NF, UK. 4. London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK. 5. Specialist Trainee in Haematology, Cheltenham General Hospital, GL53 7AN, UK. 6. Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. 7. Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ, UK; Consultant in Acute and Metabolic Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, E1 1BB, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early warning scores are commonly used in hospitals to identify patients at risk of deterioration. The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) has recently been introduced to UK practice. However, it is not yet widely implemented. We aimed to compare NEWS to the early warning score currently used in our hospital--the Patient at Risk Score (PARS). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of all adult general medical patients admitted to a single hospital over a 20-day period. Physiological data and early warning scores recorded in bedside charts were collected on admission and a NEWS score was retrospectively calculated. The patient notes were reviewed at 48 h after admission. The primary outcome was a composite of critical care admission or death within 2 days of admission. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay. RESULTS: NEWS was more strongly associated with the primary outcome than PARS (odds ratio 1.54, p < 0.001 compared to 1.42, p = 0.056). A NEWS of 3 or more was associated with the primary outcome (odds ratio 7.03, p = 0.003). Neither score was correlated with hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: NEWS on admission is superior to PARS for identifying patients at risk of death or critical care admission within the first 2 days of hospital stay. Current guidelines advocate a threshold of 5 for triggering a clinical review. However, since a score of 3 or more was associated with a poor outcome, this recommendation should be reviewed. Both scores were poor predictors of hospital length of stay.
INTRODUCTION: Early warning scores are commonly used in hospitals to identify patients at risk of deterioration. The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) has recently been introduced to UK practice. However, it is not yet widely implemented. We aimed to compare NEWS to the early warning score currently used in our hospital--the Patient at Risk Score (PARS). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of all adult general medical patients admitted to a single hospital over a 20-day period. Physiological data and early warning scores recorded in bedside charts were collected on admission and a NEWS score was retrospectively calculated. The patient notes were reviewed at 48 h after admission. The primary outcome was a composite of critical care admission or death within 2 days of admission. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay. RESULTS: NEWS was more strongly associated with the primary outcome than PARS (odds ratio 1.54, p < 0.001 compared to 1.42, p = 0.056). A NEWS of 3 or more was associated with the primary outcome (odds ratio 7.03, p = 0.003). Neither score was correlated with hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: NEWS on admission is superior to PARS for identifying patients at risk of death or critical care admission within the first 2 days of hospital stay. Current guidelines advocate a threshold of 5 for triggering a clinical review. However, since a score of 3 or more was associated with a poor outcome, this recommendation should be reviewed. Both scores were poor predictors of hospital length of stay.
Authors: Armando D Bedoya; Meredith E Clement; Matthew Phelan; Rebecca C Steorts; Cara O'Brien; Benjamin A Goldstein Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Stephen Gerry; Timothy Bonnici; Jacqueline Birks; Shona Kirtley; Pradeep S Virdee; Peter J Watkinson; Gary S Collins Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-05-20
Authors: Sara Graziadio; Rachel Amie O'Leary; Deborah D Stocken; Michael Power; A Joy Allen; A John Simpson; David Ashley Price Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Francisco Martín-Rodríguez; Raúl López-Izquierdo; Carlos Del Pozo Vegas; Juan F Delgado-Benito; Carmen Del Pozo Pérez; Virginia Carbajosa Rodríguez; Agustín Mayo Iscar; José Luis Martín-Conty; Carlos Escudero Cuadrillero; Miguel A Castro-Villamor Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 1.112
Authors: Tanya Pankhurst; Elizabeth Sapey; Helen Gyves; Felicity Evison; Suzy Gallier; George Gkoutos; Simon Ball Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Diana Sbiti-Rohr; Alexander Kutz; Mirjam Christ-Crain; Robert Thomann; Werner Zimmerli; Claus Hoess; Christoph Henzen; Beat Mueller; Philipp Schuetz Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tom E F Abbott; Rupert M Pearse; R Andrew Archbold; Tahania Ahmad; Edyta Niebrzegowska; Andrew Wragg; Reitze N Rodseth; Philip J Devereaux; Gareth L Ackland Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.108