Background: For critical patients in resuscitation room, the early prediction of potential risk and rapid evaluation of disease progression would help physicians with timely treatment, leading to improved outcome. In this study, it focused on the application of National Early Warning Score on predicting prognosis and conditions of patients in resuscitation room. The National Early Warning Score was compared with the Modified Early Warning Score) and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II. Objectives: To assess the significance of NEWS for predicting prognosis and evaluating conditions of patients in resuscitation rooms. Methods: A total of 621 consecutive cases from resuscitation room of Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University were included during June 2015 to January 2016. All cases were prospectively evaluated with Modified Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and then followed up for 28 days. For the prognosis prediction, the cases were divided into death group and survival group. The Modified Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II results of the two groups were compared. In addition, receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for assessing and predicting intensive care unit admission and 28-day mortality. Results: For the prognosis prediction, in death group, the National Early Warning Score (9.50 ± 3.08), Modified Early Warning Score (4.87 ± 2.49), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.29 ± 5.31) were significantly higher than National Early Warning Score (5.29 ± 3.13), Modified Early Warning Score (3.02 ± 1.93), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (13.22 ± 6.39) in survival group ( p < 0.01). For the disease progression evaluation, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II were 0.760, 0.729, and 0.817 ( p < 0.05), respectively, for predicting intensive care unit admission; they were 0.827, 0.723, and 0.883, respectively, for predicting 28-day mortality. The comparison of the three systems was significant ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: The performance of National Early Warning Score for predicting intensive care unit admission and 28-day mortality was inferior than Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II but superior than Modified Early Warning Score. It was able to rapidly predict prognosis and evaluate disease progression of critical patients in resuscitation room.
Corrigendum to “Risk prediction using the National Early Warning Score and the Worthing Physiological Scoring System in patients who were transported to the Intensive Care Unit from the Emergency Department: A cohort study” [Intens. Crit. Care Nurs. 64 (2021) 103015]
