The use of early warning system scores in prehospital and emergency department settings to predict clinical deterioration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear which Early Warning System (EWS) score best predicts in-hospital deterioration of patients when applied in the Emergency Department (ED) or prehospital setting. METHODS: This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis assessed the predictive abilities of five commonly used EWS scores (National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its updated version NEWS2, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Acute Physiological Score (RAPS), and Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (CART)). Outcomes of interest included admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and 3-to-30-day mortality following hospital admission. Using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, pooled estimates were calculated according to the EWS score cut-off points, outcomes, and study setting. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-regressions investigated between-study heterogeneity. Funnel plots tested for publication bias. The SR is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020191254). RESULTS: Overall, 11,565 articles were identified, of which 20 were included. In the ED setting, MEWS, and NEWS at cut-off points of 3, 4, or 6 had similar pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) to predict 30-day mortality, ranging from 4.05 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.35-6.99) to 6.48 (95% CI 1.83-22.89), p = 0.757. MEWS at a cut-off point ≥3 had a similar DOR when predicting ICU admission (5.54 (95% CI 2.02-15.21)). MEWS ≥5 and NEWS ≥7 had DORs of 3.05 (95% CI 2.00-4.65) and 4.74 (95% CI 4.08-5.50), respectively, when predicting 30-day mortality in patients presenting with sepsis in the ED. In the prehospital setting, the EWS scores significantly predicted 3-day mortality but failed to predict 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: EWS scores' predictability of clinical deterioration is improved when the score is applied to patients treated in the hospital setting. However, the high thresholds used and the failure of the scores to predict 30-day mortality make them less suited for use in the prehospital setting.

Loddon Mallee healthcare worker COVID-19 study-protocol for a prospective cohort study examining the health and well-being of rural Australian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is creating immense psychosocial disturbance. While global, broad-based research is being conducted, little is known about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on health and well-being or how protective and resilience factors influence the human response in Australian rural and regional communities. Rural and regional communities often have less resources to deal with such public health emergencies and face additional environmental adversity. Healthcare workers, including those in rural and regional areas, have felt the immediate impacts of COVID-19 in a multitude of ways and these impacts will continue for years to come. Therefore, this study aims to describe and understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rural and regional healthcare workforce within the Loddon Mallee region, Victoria, Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective cohort of rural and regional healthcare workers will be recruited and followed over 3 years to examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on their health and well-being. Self-administered online questionnaires will be administered every 6 months for a 36-month period. Multiple outcomes will be assessed; however, the primary outcomes are emotional health and well-being and psychological resilience. Emotional health and well-being will be measured using validated instruments that will assess multiple domains of the emotional health and well-being continuum.Linear and logistic regression and latent growth curve modelling will be used to examine the association between baseline and follow-up participant emotional health, well-being and resilience while adjusting for potentially time-varying confounding variables. Participant characteristics measured at baseline will also be tested for association with incident health, morbidity, mortality and health service utilisation outcomes at follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained through the Bendigo Health Human Research Ethics Committee. The study findings will be disseminated through international conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620001269921.