Using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) outside acute hospital settings: A qualitative study of staff experiences in the West of England

© 2018 Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Objectives Early warning scores were developed to improve recognition of clinical deterioration in acute hospital settings. In England, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is increasingly being recommended at a national level for use outside such settings. In 2015, the West of England Academic Health Science Network supported the roll-out of NEWS across a range of non-acute-hospital healthcare sectors. Research on the use of NEWS outside acute hospitals is limited. The objective of this study was to explore staff experiences of using NEWS in these new settings. Design Thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled healthcare staff. Setting West of England healthcare settings where NEWS was being used outside acute hospitals - primary care, ambulance, referral management, community and mental health services. Participants Twenty-five healthcare staff interviewed from primary care (9), ambulance (3), referral management/acute interface (5), community (4) and mental health services (3), and service commissioning (1). Results Participants reported that NEWS could support clinical decision-making around escalation of care, and provide a clear means of communicating clinical acuity between clinicians and across different healthcare organisations. Challenges with implementing NEWS varied - in primary care, clinicians had to select patients for NEWS and adopt different methods of clinical assessment, whereas for paramedics it fitted well with usual clinical practice and was used for all patients. In community services and mental health, modifications were 'needed' to make the tool relevant to some patient populations. Conclusions This study demonstrated that while NEWS can work for staff outside acute hospital settings, the potential for routine clinical practice to accommodate NEWS in such settings varied. A tailored approach to implementation in different settings, incorporating guidance supported by further research on the use of NEWS with specific patient groups in community settings, may be beneficial, and enhance staff confidence in the tool

Prognostic value of National Early Warning Scores (NEWS2) and component physiology in hospitalised patients with COVID-19:a multicentre study

BACKGROUND: National Early Warning Scores (NEWS2) are used to detect all-cause deterioration. While studies have looked at NEWS2, the use of virtual consultation and remote monitoring of patients with COVID-19 mean there is a need to know which physiological observations are important. AIM: To investigate the relationship between outcome and NEWS2, change in NEWS2 and component physiology in COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study of electronically recorded, routinely collected physiological measurements between March and June 2020. First and maximum NEWS2, component scores and outcomes were recorded. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for 2-day, 7-day and 30-day mortality were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1263 patients, 26% died, 7% were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) before discharge and 67% were discharged without ICU. Of 1071 patients with initial NEWS2, most values were low: 50% NEWS2=0–2, 27% NEWS2=3–4, 14% NEWS2=5–6 and 9% NEWS2=7+. Maximum scores were: 14% NEWS2=0–2, 22% NEWS2=3–4, 17% NEWS2=5–6 and 47% NEWS2=7+. Higher first and maximum scores were predictive of mortality, ICU admission and longer length of stay. AUCs based on 2-day, 7-day, 30-day and any hospital mortality were 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.84), 0.70 (0.65 to 0.74), 0.65 (0.61 to 0.68) and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.68), respectively. The AUCs for 2-day mortality were 0.71 (0.65 to 0.77) for supplemental oxygen, 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) oxygen saturation and 0.64 (0.56 to 0.73) respiratory rate. CONCLUSION: While respiratory parameters were most predictive, no individual parameter was as good as a full NEWS2, which is an acceptable predictor of short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. This supports recommendation to use NEWS2 alongside clinical judgement to assess patients with COVID-19

Using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in care homes:a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is an advance care planning process designed to facilitate discussion and documentation of preferences for care in a medical emergency. Advance care planning is important in residential and nursing homes. AIM: To explore the views and experiences of GPs and care home staff of the role of ReSPECT in: (i) supporting, and documenting, conversations about care home residents’ preferences for emergency care situations, and (ii) supporting decision-making in clinical emergencies. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen GPs providing clinical care for care home residents and 11 care home staff in the West of England. METHODS: A qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Participants’ accounts described the ReSPECT process as facilitating person-centred conversations about residents’ preferences for care in emergency situations. The creation of personalised scenarios supported residents to consider their preferences. However, using ReSPECT was complex, requiring interactional work to identify and incorporate resident or relative preferences. Subsequent translation of preferences into action during emergency situations also proved difficult in some cases. Care staff played an important role in facilitating and supporting ReSPECT conversations and in translating it into action. CONCLUSIONS: The ReSPECT process in care homes was positive for GPs and care home staff. We highlight challenges with the process, communication of preferences in emergency situations and the importance of balancing detail with clarity. This study highlights the potential for a multi-disciplinary approach engaging care staff more in the process

Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals

Background: Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice, however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision making. The study compared clinicians’ views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information). Methods: Potential outcomes/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into 6 categories, and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a 9-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t-tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the 6 outcome/information categories. Results: Data sources identified 1216 outcomes/information of CRC surgery that informed a 94 item questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78%) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84%) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than to information to communicate to patients in Round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51%) in Round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains about survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than important piece of information for decision-making (mean difference 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.8, p<0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (mean difference 0.18, 95% CI -0.1-0.4, p=0.2 and 0.2, 95% CI -0.1-0.5, p=0.2 respectively). Conclusions: Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard “core” set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. Methods and Findings: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). Conclusion: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice