Early warning scores and critical care transfer - patient heterogeneity, low sensitivity, high mortality.

BACKGROUND: Emergency warning systems (EWS) are becoming a standard of care, but have unproven screening value in early critical illness. Similarly, emergency response team (ERT) care is of uncertain value. These questions are most controversial in mixed patient populations, where screening performance might vary, and intensivist-led ERT care might divert resources from existing patients. AIMS: To examine triggering events, disposition and outcome data for an intensivist-staffed EWS-ERT system. METHODS: We analysed process and outcome data over three years, classing EWS-triggered patients into three categories (non-escalated, escalated ward care and critical care transfer). The relationships between EWS data, pre-triggering clinical data, and patient disposition and outcome were examined. RESULTS: There were 1675 calls in 1190 patients. Most occurred later during admission, with critical care transfer in a minority; the rest were followed by escalated or non-escalated ward care. Patients transferred to critical care had high mortality (40.3%); less than half of patient transfers occurred following triggering EWS score predicted overall hospital mortality, but not mortality after critical care. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse hospital population, most triggering patients did not receive critical care and most critical care transfers occurred without triggering. Triggering was an insensitive screening measure for critical illness, followed by poor outcome. Higher scores predicted higher probability of transfer, but not later mortality, suggesting that EWS is being used as a decision aid but is not a true severity of illness score. Other, non-EWS data are needed for earlier detection and for prioritizing access to critical care.

Triggers and Interventions of Patients Who Require Medical Emergency Team Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Single Versus Multiple Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Medical emergency teams constitute part of the escalation protocol of early warning systems in many hospitals. The literature indicates that medical emergency teams may reduce hospital mortality and cardiac arrest. A greater understanding of pathways of patients who experience multiple medical emergency team reviews will inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To explore differences between patients who require a single medical emergency team review and those who require multiple reviews, and to identify any differences between patients who were reviewed only once during admission and patients who required multiple reviews. METHODS: Data for this retrospective cross-sectional review, including demographic data, call triggers, outcomes, and interventions, were routinely collected from January 2013 through December 2015. The study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) collaborative's cross-sectional studies checklist (version 4). RESULTS: Of 54 787 admitted patients, 1274 (2%) required a call to a medical emergency team; of those, 260 patients (20%) needed multiple calls. Patients requiring multiple calls demonstrated higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.12-1.98]). A logistic regression model identified surgical patients and those receiving antibiotics and respiratory interventions at the first medical emergency team review as being more likely to require multiple reviews. Patients transferred to a higher level of care after the first review were less likely to require another review. CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring multiple medical emergency team reviews have higher mortality. Surgical patients have a higher risk of requiring multiple reviews. Hospitals need to include more details on surgical patients when auditing medical emergency team activation.