Predicting Patient Deterioration: A Review of Tools in the Digital Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: Early warning tools identify patients at risk of deterioration in hospitals. Electronic medical records in hospitals offer real-time data and the opportunity to automate early warning tools and provide real-time, dynamic risk estimates. OBJECTIVE: This review describes published studies on the development, validation, and implementation of tools for predicting patient deterioration in general wards in hospitals. METHODS: An electronic database search of peer reviewed journal papers from 2008-2020 identified studies reporting the use of tools and algorithms for predicting patient deterioration, defined by unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit, cardiac arrest, or death. Studies conducted solely in intensive care units, emergency departments, or single diagnosis patient groups were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 46 publications were eligible for inclusion. These publications were heterogeneous in design, setting, and outcome measures. Most studies were retrospective studies using cohort data to develop, validate, or statistically evaluate prediction tools. The tools consisted of early warning, screening, or scoring systems based on physiologic data, as well as more complex algorithms developed to better represent real-time data, deal with complexities of longitudinal data, and warn of deterioration risk earlier. Only a few studies detailed the results of the implementation of deterioration warning tools. CONCLUSIONS: Despite relative progress in the development of algorithms to predict patient deterioration, the literature has not shown that the deployment or implementation of such algorithms is reproducibly associated with improvements in patient outcomes. Further work is needed to realize the potential of automated predictions and update dynamic risk estimates as part of an operational early warning system for inpatient deterioration.

Predicting clinical deterioration with Q-ADDS compared to NEWS, Between the Flags, and eCART track and trigger tools.

BACKGROUND: Early warning tools have been widely implemented without evidence to guide (a) recognition and (b) response team expertise optimisation. With growing databases from MET-calls and digital hospitals, we now have access to guiding information. The Queensland Adult-Deterioration-Detection-System (Q-ADDS) is widely used and requires validation. AIM: Compare the accuracy of Q-ADDS to National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Between-the-Flags (BTF) and the electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score (eCART)). METHODS: Data from the Chicago University hospital database were used. Clinical deterioration was defined as unplanned admission to ICU or death. Currently used NEWS, BTF and eCART trigger thresholds were compared with a clinically endorsed Q-ADDS variant. RESULTS: Of 224,912 admissions, 11,706 (5%) experienced clinical deterioration. Q-ADDS (AUC 0.71) and NEWS (AUC 0.72) had similar predictive accuracy, BTF (AUC 0.64) had the lowest, and eCART (AUC 0.76) the highest. Early warning alert (advising ward MO review) had similar NPV (99.2-99.3%), for all the four tools however sensitivity varied (%: Q-ADDS = 47/NEWS = 49/BTF = 66/eCART = 40), as did alerting rate (% vitals sets: Q-ADDS = 1.4/NEWS = 3.5/BTF = 4.1/eCART = 3.4). MET alert (advising MET/critical-care review) had similar NPV for all the four tools (99.1-99.2%), however sensitivity varied (%: Q-ADDS = 14/NEWS = 24/BTF = 19/eCART = 29), as did MET alerting rate (%: Q-ADDS = 1.4/NEWS = 3.5/BTF = 4.1/eCART = 3.4). High-severity alert (advising advanced ward review, Q-ADDS only): NPV = 99.1%, sensitivity = 26%, alerting rate = 3.5%. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of Q-ADDS is comparable to NEWS, and higher than BTF, with eCART being the most accurate. Q-ADDS provides an additional high-severity ward alert, and generated significantly fewer MET alerts. Impacts of increased ward awareness and fewer MET alerts on actual MET call numbers and patient outcomes requires further evaluation.