Susan M Chapman1,2,3, Jo Wray2,4, Kate Oulton2,4, Christina Pagel5,6, Samiran Ray6,7, Mark J Peters6,7. 1. Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. 2. UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK. 3. Department of Children's Nursing, London South Bank University, London, UK. 4. Outcomes and Experience Research in Children's Health, Illness and Disability (ORCHID), Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. 5. Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK. 6. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. 7. Respiratory, Anaesthesia, and Critical Care Group, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance of 18 paediatric early warning systems (PEWS) in predicting critical deterioration. DESIGN: Retrospective case-controlled study. PEWS values were calculated from existing clinical data, and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) compared. SETTING: UK tertiary referral children's hospital. PATIENTS: Patients without a 'do not attempt resuscitation' order admitted between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012. All patients on paediatric wards who suffered a critical deterioration event were designated 'cases' and matched with a control closest in age who was present on the same ward at the same time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respiratory and/or cardiac arrest, unplanned transfer to paediatric intensive care and/or unexpected death. RESULTS: 12 'scoring' and 6 'trigger' systems were suitable for comparative analysis. 297 case events in 224 patients were available for analysis. 244 control patients were identified for the 311 events. Three PEWS demonstrated better overall predictive performance with an AUROC of 0.87 or greater. Comparing each system with the highest performing PEWS with Bonferroni's correction for multiple comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences for 13 systems. Trigger systems performed worse than scoring systems, occupying the six lowest places in the AUROC rankings. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the performance of published PEWS, and as such the choice of PEWS has the potential to be clinically important. Trigger-based systems performed poorly overall, but it remains unclear what factors determine optimum performance. More complex systems did not necessarily demonstrate improved performance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance of 18 paediatric early warning systems (PEWS) in predicting critical deterioration. DESIGN: Retrospective case-controlled study. PEWS values were calculated from existing clinical data, and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) compared. SETTING: UK tertiary referral children's hospital. PATIENTS: Patients without a 'do not attempt resuscitation' order admitted between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012. All patients on paediatric wards who suffered a critical deterioration event were designated 'cases' and matched with a control closest in age who was present on the same ward at the same time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respiratory and/or cardiac arrest, unplanned transfer to paediatric intensive care and/or unexpected death. RESULTS: 12 'scoring' and 6 'trigger' systems were suitable for comparative analysis. 297 case events in 224 patients were available for analysis. 244 control patients were identified for the 311 events. Three PEWS demonstrated better overall predictive performance with an AUROC of 0.87 or greater. Comparing each system with the highest performing PEWS with Bonferroni's correction for multiple comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences for 13 systems. Trigger systems performed worse than scoring systems, occupying the six lowest places in the AUROC rankings. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the performance of published PEWS, and as such the choice of PEWS has the potential to be clinically important. Trigger-based systems performed poorly overall, but it remains unclear what factors determine optimum performance. More complex systems did not necessarily demonstrate improved performance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: James M Hoffman; Nicholas J Keeling; Christopher B Forrest; Heather L Tubbs-Cooley; Erin Moore; Emily Oehler; Stephanie Wilson; Elisabeth Schainker; Kathleen E Walsh Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Mark J Peters; Waleed Alhazzani; Michael S D Agus; Heidi R Flori; David P Inwald; Simon Nadel; Luregn J Schlapbach; Robert C Tasker; Andrew C Argent; Joe Brierley; Joseph Carcillo; Enitan D Carrol; Christopher L Carroll; Ira M Cheifetz; Karen Choong; Jeffry J Cies; Andrea T Cruz; Daniele De Luca; Akash Deep; Saul N Faust; Claudio Flauzino De Oliveira; Mark W Hall; Paul Ishimine; Etienne Javouhey; Koen F M Joosten; Poonam Joshi; Oliver Karam; Martin C J Kneyber; Joris Lemson; Graeme MacLaren; Nilesh M Mehta; Morten Hylander Møller; Christopher J L Newth; Trung C Nguyen; Akira Nishisaki; Mark E Nunnally; Margaret M Parker; Raina M Paul; Adrienne G Randolph; Suchitra Ranjit; Lewis H Romer; Halden F Scott; Lyvonne N Tume; Judy T Verger; Eric A Williams; Joshua Wolf; Hector R Wong; Jerry J Zimmerman; Niranjan Kissoon; Pierre Tissieres Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anoop Mayampurath; L Nelson Sanchez-Pinto; Emma Hegermiller; Amarachi Erondu; Kyle Carey; Priti Jani; Robert Gibbons; Dana Edelson; Matthew M Churpek Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.971
Authors: Sam T Romaine; Jessica Potter; Aakash Khanijau; Rachel J McGalliard; Jemma L Wright; Gerri Sefton; Simon Leigh; Karl Edwardson; Philip Johnston; Anne Kerr; Luregn J Schlapbach; Philip Pallmann; Enitan D Carrol Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Rob Trubey; Chao Huang; Fiona V Lugg-Widger; Kerenza Hood; Davina Allen; Dawn Edwards; David Lacy; Amy Lloyd; Mala Mann; Brendan Mason; Alison Oliver; Damian Roland; Gerri Sefton; Richard Skone; Emma Thomas-Jones; Lyvonne N Tume; Colin Powell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anoop Mayampurath; Priti Jani; Yangyang Dai; Robert Gibbons; Dana Edelson; Matthew M Churpek Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.971