Comparison of the National Early Warning Score in non-elective medical and surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is used to identify deteriorating patients in hospital. NEWS is a better discriminator of outcomes than other early warning scores in acute medical admissions, but it has not been evaluated in a surgical population. The study aims were to evaluate the ability of NEWS to discriminate cardiac arrest, death and unanticipated ICU admission in patients admitted to surgical specialties, and to compare the performance of NEWS in admissions to medical and surgical specialties. METHODS: Hospitalwide data over 31 months, from adult inpatients who stayed at least one night or died on the day of admission, were analysed. The data were categorized as elective or non-elective surgical or medical admissions. The ability of NEWS to discriminate the outcomes above in these different groups was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: There were too few outcomes to permit meaningful comparison of elective admissions, so the analysis was constrained to comparison of non-elective admissions. NEWS performed equally well, or better, for surgical as for medical patients. For death within 24 h the AUROC for surgical admissions was 0·914 (95 per cent c.i. 0·907 to 0·922), compared with 0·902 (0·898 to 0·905) for medical admissions. For the combined outcome of any of death, cardiac arrest or unanticipated ICU admission, the AUROC was 0·874 (0·868 to 0·880) for surgical admissions and 0·874 (0·871 to 0·877) for medical admissions. CONCLUSION: NEWS discriminated deterioration in non-elective surgical patients at least as well as in non-elective medical patients

Financial consequences of the implementation of a rapid response system on a surgical ward

Abstract Rationale, aims and objectives Rapid response systems (RRSs) are recommended by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and implemented worldwide. Our study on the effects of an RRS showed a non-significant decrease in cardiac arrest and/or unexpected death from 0.5% to 0.25%. Unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions increased significantly from 2.5% to 4.2% without a decrease in APACHE II scores. In this study, we estimated the mean costs of an RRS per patient day and tested the hypothesis that admitting less severely ill patients to the ICU reduces costs. Methods A cost analysis of an RRS on a surgical ward, including costs for implementation, a 1-day training programme for nurses, nursing time for extra vital signs observation, medical emergency team (MET) consults and differences in unplanned ICU days before and after RRS implementation. To test the hypothesis, we performed a scenario analysis with a mean APACHE II score of 14 points instead of the empirical 17.6 points for the unplanned ICU admissions, including 33% extra MET consults and 22% extra unplanned ICU admissions. Results Mean RRS costs were €26.87 per patient-day: implementation €0.33 (1%), training €0.90 (3%), nursing time spent on extended observation of vital signs €2.20 (8%), MET consults €0.57 (2%) and increased number of unplanned ICU days after RRS implementation €22.87 (85%). In the scenario analysis mean costs per patient-day were €10.18. Conclusions The costs for extra unplanned ICU days were relatively high but the remaining RRS costs were relatively low. The 'APACHE II 14' scenario confirmed the hypothesis that costs for the number of unplanned ICU days can be reduced if less severely ill patients are referred to the ICU. Based upon these findings, our hospital stimulates earlier referral to the ICU, although further implementation strategies are needed to achieve these aims

Rapid response systems: are they really effective?

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2015 and co-published as a series in Critical Care. Other articles in the series can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2015. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901