Rita Patel1, Manjula D Nugawela2, Hannah B Edwards2, Alison Richards2, Hein Le Roux3, Anne Pullyblank4, Penny Whiting2. 1. The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Electronic address: rita.patel@bristol.ac.uk. 2. The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. 3. Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, Sanger House, 5220 Valiant Court, Gloucester Business Park, Brockworth, Gloucester, GL3 4FE, UK; West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol, BS1 3NX, UK. 4. West of England Academic Health Science Network (WEAHSN), South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol, BS1 3NX, UK; North Bristol NHS Trust, Trust Headquarters, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and predictive accuracy of early warning scores (EWS) to predict deteriorating patients in pre-hospital settings. METHODS: Systematic review. Seven databases searched to August 2017. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. A narrative synthesis is presented. ELIGIBILITY: Studies that evaluated EWS predictive accuracy or that compared outcomes in populations that did or did not use EWS, in any pre-hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. EWS were included if they aggregated three or more physiological parameters. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (157,878 participants) of predictive accuracy were included (16 in ambulance service and 1 in nursing home). AUCs ranged from 0.50 (CI not reported) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.82, 0.96). AUCs were generally higher (>0.80) for prediction of mortality within short time frames or for combination outcomes that included mortality and ICU admission. Few patients with low scores died at any time point. Patients with high scores were at risk of deterioration. Results were less clear for intermediate thresholds (≥4 or 5). Five studies were judged at low or unclear risk of bias, all others were judged at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Very low and high EWS are able to discriminate between patients who are not likely and those who are likely to deteriorate in the pre-hospital setting. No study compared outcomes pre- and post-implementation of EWS so there is no evidence on whether patient outcomes differ between pre-hospital settings that do and do not use EWS. Further studies are required to address this question and to evaluate EWS in pre-hospital settings.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and predictive accuracy of early warning scores (EWS) to predict deteriorating patients in pre-hospital settings. METHODS: Systematic review. Seven databases searched to August 2017. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. A narrative synthesis is presented. ELIGIBILITY: Studies that evaluated EWS predictive accuracy or that compared outcomes in populations that did or did not use EWS, in any pre-hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. EWS were included if they aggregated three or more physiological parameters. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (157,878 participants) of predictive accuracy were included (16 in ambulance service and 1 in nursing home). AUCs ranged from 0.50 (CI not reported) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.82, 0.96). AUCs were generally higher (>0.80) for prediction of mortality within short time frames or for combination outcomes that included mortality and ICU admission. Few patients with low scores died at any time point. Patients with high scores were at risk of deterioration. Results were less clear for intermediate thresholds (≥4 or 5). Five studies were judged at low or unclear risk of bias, all others were judged at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Very low and high EWS are able to discriminate between patients who are not likely and those who are likely to deteriorate in the pre-hospital setting. No study compared outcomes pre- and post-implementation of EWS so there is no evidence on whether patient outcomes differ between pre-hospital settings that do and do not use EWS. Further studies are required to address this question and to evaluate EWS in pre-hospital settings.
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: Jussi Pirneskoski; Joonas Tamminen; Antti Kallonen; Jouni Nurmi; Markku Kuisma; Klaus T Olkkola; Sanna Hoppu Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-12-05
Authors: Anna V Silven; Annelieke H J Petrus; María Villalobos-Quesada; Ebru Dirikgil; Carlijn R Oerlemans; Cyril P Landstra; Hileen Boosman; Hendrikus J A van Os; Marco H Blanker; Roderick W Treskes; Tobias N Bonten; Niels H Chavannes; Douwe E Atsma; Y K Onno Teng Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.428