Evaluation of Early Warning Scores on In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Tertiary Hospital Study from Taiwan.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a global pandemic. Early warning scores (EWS) are used to identify potential clinical deterioration, and this study evaluated the ability of the Rapid Emergency Medicine score (REMS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and Modified EWS (MEWS) to predict in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. This study retrospectively analyzed data from COVID-19 patients who presented to the emergency department and were hospitalized between 1 May and 31 July 2021. The area under curve (AUC) was calculated to compare predictive performance of the three EWS. Data from 306 COVID-19 patients (61 ± 15 years, 53% male) were included for analysis. REMS had the highest AUC for in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.773, 95% CI: 0.69-0.85), followed by NEWS (AUC: 0.730, 95% CI: 0.64-0.82) and MEWS (AUC: 0.695, 95% CI: 0.60-0.79). The optimal cut-off value for REMS was 6.5 (sensitivity: 71.4%; specificity: 76.3%), with positive and negative predictive values of 27.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Computing REMS for COVID-19 patients who present to the emergency department can help identify those at risk of in-hospital mortality and facilitate early intervention, which can lead to better patient outcomes.

Screening for infectious maternal morbidity - knowledge, attitudes and perceptions among healthcare providers and managers in Malawi: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Maternal morbidity and mortality related to infection is an international public health concern, but detection and assessment is often difficult as part of routine maternity care in many low- and middle-income countries due to lack of easily accessible diagnostics. Front-line healthcare providers are key for the early identification and management of the unwell woman who may have infection. We sought to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the use of screening tools to detect infectious maternal morbidity during and after pregnancy as part of routine antenatal and postnatal care. Enabling factors, barriers, and potential management options for the use of early warning scores were explored. METHODS: Key informant interviews (n = 10) and two focus group discussions (n = 14) were conducted with healthcare providers and managers (total = 24) working in one large tertiary public hospital in Blantyre, Malawi. Transcribed interviews were coded by topic and then grouped into categories. Thematic framework analysis was undertaken to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Most healthcare providers are aware of the importance of the early detection of infection and would seek to better identify women with infection if resources were available to do so. In current practice, an early warning score was used in the high dependency unit only. Routine screening was not in place in the antenatal or postnatal departments. Barriers to implementing routine screening included lack of trained staff and time, lack of thermometers, and difficulties with the interpretation of the early warning scores. A locally adapted early warning screening tool was considered an enabler to implementing routine screening for infectious morbidity. Local ownership and clinical leadership were considered essential for successful and sustainable implementation for clinical change. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare providers considered infection during and after pregnancy and childbirth a danger sign and significant morbidity, standardised screening for infectious maternal morbidity was not part of routine antenatal or postnatal care. The establishment of such a service requires the availability of free and easy to access rapid diagnostic testing, training in interpretation of results, as well as affordable targeted treatment. The implementation of early warning scores and processes developed in high-income countries need careful consideration and validation when applied to women accessing care in low resource settings.

Comparison of Nine Early Warning Scores for Identification of Short-Term Mortality in Acute Neurological Disease in Emergency Department.

(1) Background: The aim was screening the performance of nine Early Warning Scores (EWS), to identify patients at high-risk of premature impairment and to detect intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, as well as to track the 2-, 7-, 14-, and 28-day mortality in a cohort of patients diagnosed with an acute neurological condition. (2) Methods: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal, observational study, calculating the EWS [Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), VitalPAC Early Warning Score (ViEWS), Modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (MREMS), Early Warning Score (EWS), Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS), Standardised Early Warning Score (SEWS), WHO Prognostic Scored System (WPSS), and Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS)] upon the arrival of patients to the emergency department. (3) Results: In all, 1160 patients were included: 808 patients were hospitalized, 199 cases (17%) required ICU care, and 6% of patients died (64 cases) within 2 days, which rose to 16% (183 cases) within 28 days. The highest area under the curve for predicting the need for ICU admissions was obtained by RAPS and MEWS. For predicting mortality, MREMS obtained the best scores for 2- and 28-day mortality. (4) Conclusions: This is the first study to explore whether several EWS accurately identify the risk of ICU admissions and mortality, at different time points, in patients with acute neurological disorders. Every score analyzed obtained good results, but it is suggested that the use of RAPS, MEWS, and MREMS should be preferred in the acute setting, for patients with neurological impairment.

A study to introduce National Early Warning Scores (NEWS) in care homes: Influence on decision-making and referral processes.

AIM: Early warning scores are commonly used in hospital settings, but little is known about their use in care homes. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of National Early Warning Scores alongside other measures in this setting. DESIGN: Convergent parallel design. METHODS: Quantitative data from 276 care home residents from four care homes were used to analyse the relationship between National Early Warning Scores score, resident outcome and functional daily living (Barthel ADL (Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living)) and Rockwood (frailty). Interviews with care home staff (N = 13) and care practitioners (N = 4) were used to provide qualitative data. RESULTS: A statistically significant link between National Early Warning Scores (p = .000) and Barthel ADL (p = .013) score and hospital admissions was found, while links with Rockwood were insignificant (p = .551). Care home staff reported many benefits of National Early Warning Scores, including improved communication, improved decision-making and role empowerment. Although useful, due to the complexity of the resident population's existing health conditions, National Early Warning Scores alone could not act as a diagnostic tool.

Utility of early warning scores to predict mortality in COVID-19 patients: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) has evolved as a global pandemic. The patients with COVID-19 infection can present as mild, moderate, and severe disease forms. The reported mortality of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection is around 6.6%, which is lower than that of SARS-CoV and (middle east respiratory syndrome CoV). However, the fatality rate of COVID-19 infection is higher in the geriatric age group and in patients with multiple co-morbidities. The study aimed to evaluate the utility of early warning scores (EWS) to predict mortality in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This retrospective study was carried out in a tertiary care institute of Uttarakhand. Demographic and clinical data of the admitted patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection were collected from the hospital record section and utilized to calculate the EWS-National early warning score (NEWS), modified early warning score (MEWS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), and worthing physiological scoring system (WPS). RESULTS: The area under the curve for NEWS, MEWS, RAPS, REMS, and WPS was 0.813 (95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.769-0.858), 0.770 (95% CI; 0.717-0.822), 0.755 (95% CI; 0.705-0.805), 0.892 (95% CI; 0.859-0.924), and 0.892 (95% CI; 0.86-0.924), respectively. CONCLUSION: The EWS at triage can be used for early assessment of severity as well as predict mortality in patients with COVID-19 patients.

NEWS2 to assess suspected COVID-19 in the community: a service evaluation of a primary care assessment centre.

BACKGROUND: Primary care has played a central role in the community response to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been advocated as a tool to guide escalation decisions in the community. The performance of this tool applied in this context is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the process of escalation of care to the hospital within a primary care assessment centre (PCAC) designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective service evaluation of all adult patients assessed between 30 March and 22 April 2020 within a COVID-19 primary care assessment centre within Sandwell West Birmingham CCG. METHOD: A database of patient demographics, healthcare interactions and physiological observations was constructed. NEWS2 and CRB65 scores were calculated retrospectively. The proportion of patients escalated was within risk groups defined by NHSE guidelines in place during the evaluation period was determined. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were identified. Following assessment 13.3% (n = 20) patients were deemed to require escalation. The proportion of patients escalated with a NEWS2 greater than or equal to 3 was 46.9% (95% CI 30.8-63.6%). The proportion of patients escalated to secondary care using NHSE defined risk thresholds was 0% in the green group, 22% (n = 4) in the amber group, and 81.3% (n = 13) in the red group. CONCLUSION: Clinical decisions to escalate care to the hospital did not follow initial guidance written for the COVID-19 outbreak but were demonstrated to be safe.

In most cases, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is a mild illness that resolves on its own. Some patients develop severe disease requiring hospital treatment. Identifying which patients are likely to need hospital treatment is a challenge. Many GP practices have developed specific services designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 and establish whether hospital treatment is necessary. We evaluated a service providing this function in Birmingham. We examined the care pathway of 150 patients assessed within the service to established factors associated with the need for hospital assessment. We found a national decision tool designed to aid the process was a poor descriptor of what happened in practice.

Increased time from physiological derangement to critical care admission associates with mortality.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response systems aim to achieve a timely response to the deteriorating patient; however, the existing literature varies on whether timing of escalation directly affects patient outcomes. Prior studies have been limited to using 'decision to admit' to critical care, or arrival in the emergency department as 'time zero', rather than the onset of physiological deterioration. The aim of this study is to establish if duration of abnormal physiology prior to critical care admission ['Score to Door' (STD) time] impacts on patient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data from pooled electronic medical records from a multi-site academic hospital was performed. All unplanned adult admissions to critical care from the ward with persistent physiological derangement [defined as sustained high National Early Warning Score (NEWS) > / = 7 that did not decrease below 5] were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was critical care mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of critical care admission and hospital mortality. The impact of STD time was adjusted for patient factors (demographics, sickness severity, frailty, and co-morbidity) and logistic factors (timing of high NEWS, and out of hours status) utilising logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-two patients were included over the 4-year study period, 16.3% died in critical care. STD time demonstrated a small but significant association with critical care mortality [adjusted odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 1.0-1.04, p = 0.01)]. It was also associated with hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.0-1.04, p = 0.026), and critical care length of stay. Each hour from onset of physiological derangement increased critical care length of stay by 1.2%. STD time was influenced by the initial NEWS, but not by logistic factors such as out-of-hours status, or pre-existing patient factors such as co-morbidity or frailty. CONCLUSION: In a strictly defined population of high NEWS patients, the time from onset of sustained physiological derangement to critical care admission was associated with increased critical care and hospital mortality. If corroborated in further studies, this cohort definition could be utilised alongside the 'Score to Door' concept as a clinical indicator within rapid response systems.

The role of emergency department triage early warning score (TREWS) and modified early warning score (MEWS) to predict in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: It is necessary to identify critical patients requiring hospitalization early due to the rapid increase in the number of COVID-19 cases. AIM: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of scoring systems such as emergency department triage early warning score (TREWS) and modified early warning score (MEWS) in predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, PCR positive patients evaluated for COVID-19 and decided to be hospitalized were evaluated. During the first evaluation, MEWS and TREWS scores of the patients were calculated. Intensive care needs as well as 24-h and 28-day mortality rates were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients were included in the study. While 30 (8.8%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, 4 (1.2%) died in the emergency. The number of patients who died within 28 days was found to be 57 (16.8%). In 24-h mortality, the median MEWS value was found to be 7 (IQR 25-75) while the TREWS value was 11.5 (IQR 25-75). In the ROC analysis made for the diagnostic value of 28-day mortality of MEWS and TREWS scores, the area under the curve (AUC) for the MEWS score was found to be 0.833 (95% CI 0.777-0.888, p < 0.001) while it was identified as 0.823 (95% CI 0.764-0.882, p < 0.001) for the TREWS. CONCLUSION: MEWS and TREWS calculated at emergency services are effective in predicting 28-day mortality in patients requiring hospitalization due to COVID-19.

Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure Requiring Advanced Respiratory Support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment: A Multivariable Prediction Model From Electronic Medical Record Data.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure occurs frequently in hospitalized patients and often begins outside the ICU, associated with increased length of stay, cost, and mortality. Delays in decompensation recognition are associated with worse outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to predict acute respiratory failure requiring any advanced respiratory support (including noninvasive ventilation). With the advent of the coronavirus disease pandemic, concern regarding acute respiratory failure has increased. DERIVATION COHORT: All admission encounters from January 2014 to June 2017 from three hospitals in the Emory Healthcare network (82,699). VALIDATION COHORT: External validation cohort: all admission encounters from January 2014 to June 2017 from a fourth hospital in the Emory Healthcare network (40,143). Temporal validation cohort: all admission encounters from February to April 2020 from four hospitals in the Emory Healthcare network coronavirus disease tested (2,564) and coronavirus disease positive (389). PREDICTION MODEL: All admission encounters had vital signs, laboratory, and demographic data extracted. Exclusion criteria included invasive mechanical ventilation started within the operating room or advanced respiratory support within the first 8 hours of admission. Encounters were discretized into hour intervals from 8 hours after admission to discharge or advanced respiratory support initiation and binary labeled for advanced respiratory support. Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment, our eXtreme Gradient Boosting-based algorithm, was compared against Modified Early Warning Score. RESULTS: Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment had significantly better discrimination than Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.85 vs 0.57 [test], 0.84 vs 0.61 [external validation]). Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment maintained a positive predictive value (0.31-0.21) similar to that of Modified Early Warning Score greater than 4 (0.29-0.25) while identifying 6.62 (validation) to 9.58 (test) times more true positives. Furthermore, Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment performed more effectively in temporal validation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.86 [coronavirus disease tested], 0.93 [coronavirus disease positive]), while achieving identifying 4.25-4.51× more true positives. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment is more effective than Modified Early Warning Score in predicting respiratory failure requiring advanced respiratory support at external validation and in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Silent prospective validation necessary before local deployment.

The early use of sepsis scores to predict respiratory failure and mortality in non-ICU patients with COVID-19.

This observational retrospective study aimed to investigate the usefulness of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and quick NEWS in predicting respiratory failure and death among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized outside of intensive care units (ICU). We included 237 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who were followed-up on for one month or until death. Respiratory failure was defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤200mmHg or the need for mechanical ventilation. Respiratory failure occurred in 77 patients (32.5%), 29 patients (12%) were admitted to the ICU, and 49 patients (20.7%) died. Discrimination of respiratory failure was slightly higher in NEWS, followed by SOFA. Regarding mortality, SOFA was more accurate than the other scores. In conclusion, sepsis scores are useful for predicting respiratory failure and mortality in COVID-19 patients. A NEWS score ≥4 was found to be the best cutoff point for predicting respiratory failure.

[The early use of sepsis scores to predict respiratory failure and mortality in non-ICU patients with COVID-19]. / Utilidad de las escalas de sepsis para predecir el fallo respiratorio y la muerte en pacientes con COVID-19 fuera de las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos.

This observational retrospective study aimed to investigate the usefulness of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and quick NEWS in predicting respiratory failure and death among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized outside of intensive care units (ICU). We included 237 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who were followed-up on for one month or until death. Respiratory failure was defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 200 mmHg or the need for mechanical ventilation. Respiratory failure occurred in 77 patients (32.5%), 29 patients (12%) were admitted to the ICU, and 49 patients (20.7%) died. Discrimination of respiratory failure was slightly higher in NEWS, followed by SOFA. Regarding mortality, SOFA was more accurate than the other scores. In conclusion, sepsis scores are useful for predicting respiratory failure and mortality in COVID-19 patients. A NEWS score ≥ 4 was found to be the best cutoff point for predicting respiratory failure.

The performance of the National Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score 2 in hospitalised patients infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of the UK's National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its modification, NEWS2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a worldwide pandemic. NEWS and NEWS2 have good predictive abilities in patients with other infections and sepsis, however there is little evidence of their performance in COVID-19. METHODS: Using receiver-operating characteristics analyses, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to evaluate the performance of NEWS or NEWS2 to discriminate the combined outcome of either death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 24 h of a vital sign set in five cohorts (COVID-19 POSITIVE, n = 405; COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, n = 1716; COVID-19 NOT TESTED, n = 2686; CONTROL 2018, n = 6273; CONTROL 2019, n = 6523). RESULTS: The AUROC values for NEWS or NEWS2 for the combined outcome were: COVID-19 POSITIVE, 0.882 (0.868-0.895); COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, 0.875 (0.861-0.89); COVID-19 NOT TESTED, 0.876 (0.85-0.902); CONTROL 2018, 0.894 (0.884-0.904); CONTROL 2019, 0.842 (0.829-0.855). CONCLUSIONS: The finding that NEWS or NEWS2 performance was good and similar in all five cohorts (range = 0.842-0.894) suggests that amendments to NEWS or NEWS2, such as the addition of new covariates or the need to change the weighting of existing parameters, are unnecessary when evaluating patients with COVID-19. Our results support the national and international recommendations for the use of NEWS or NEWS2 for the assessment of acute-illness severity in patients with COVID-19.

Predicting intensive care unit admission and death for COVID-19 patients in the emergency department using early warning scores.

AIMS: To identify the most accurate early warning score (EWS) for predicting an adverse outcome in COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In adult consecutive patients admitted (March 1-April 15, 2020) to the ED of a major referral centre for COVID-19, we retrospectively calculated NEWS, NEWS2, NEWS-C, MEWS, qSOFA, and REMS from physiological variables measured on arrival. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of each EWS for predicting admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death at 48 h and 7 days were calculated. RESULTS: We included 334 patients (119 [35.6%] females, median age 66 [54-78] years). At 7 days, the rates of ICU admission and death were 56/334 (17%) and 26/334 (7.8%), respectively. NEWS was the most accurate predictor of ICU admission within 7 days (AUROC 0.783 [95% CI, 0.735-0.826]; sensitivity 71.4 [57.8-82.7]%; NPV 93.1 [89.8-95.3]%), while REMS was the most accurate predictor of death within 7 days (AUROC 0.823 [0.778-0.863]; sensitivity 96.1 [80.4-99.9]%; NPV 99.4[96.2-99.9]%). Similar results were observed for ICU admission and death at 48 h. NEWS and REMS were as accurate as the triage system used in our ED. MEWS and qSOFA had the lowest overall accuracy for both outcomes. CONCLUSION: In our single-centre cohort of COVID-19 patients, NEWS and REMS measured on ED arrival were the most sensitive predictors of 7-day ICU admission or death. EWS could be useful to identify patients with low risk of clinical deterioration.