Preoperative Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using Computerized Adaptive Screening Tools: A Pilot Prospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Bass ◽  
Frank Brown ◽  
David G. Beiser ◽  
Tarren Peterson ◽  
Robert D. Gibbons ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Ulrika M. Wallgren ◽  
Jan Sjölin ◽  
Hans Järnbert-Pettersson ◽  
Lisa Kurland

Abstract Background There is little evidence of which sepsis screening tool to use in the ambulance setting. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the performance of NEWS2 (National Early Warning score 2) and RETTS (Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System) with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection. The secondary aim was to compare the performance of the novel Predict Sepsis screening tools with that of NEWS2, RETTS and clinical judgment. Methods Prospective cohort study of 323 adult ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection, transported to hospitals in Stockholm, during 2017/2018. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (Area Under the receiver operating Curve) were calculated and compared by using McNemar´s test and DeLong’s test. Results The prevalence of sepsis in the current study population was 44.6% (144 of 323 patients). No significant difference in AUC was demonstrated between NEWS2 ≥ 5 and RETTS ≥ orange. NEWS2 ≥ 7 demonstrated a significantly greater AUC than RETTS red. The Predict Sepsis screening tools ≥ 2 demonstrated the highest sensitivity (range 0.87–0.91), along with RETTS ≥ orange (0.83), but the lowest specificity (range 0.39–0.49). The AUC of NEWS2 (0.73) and the Predict Sepsis screening tools (range 0.75–0.77) was similar. Conclusions The results indicate that NEWS2 could be the better alternative for sepsis identification in the ambulance, as compared to RETTS. The Predict Sepsis screening tools demonstrated a high sensitivity and AUCs similar to that of NEWS2. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as the Predict Sepsis screening tools require external validation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249597. Registered 15 August 2017—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03249597.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristie J Harper ◽  
Annette D Barton ◽  
Glenn Arendts ◽  
Deborah G Edwards ◽  
Antonio C Petta ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo compare the Falls Risk for Older Persons—Community Setting Screening Tool (FROP Com Screen) with the Two-Item Screening Tool in older adults presenting to the ED.MethodsA prospective cohort study, comparing the efficacy of the two falls risk assessment tools by applying them simultaneously in a sample of hospital ED presentations.ResultsTwo hundred and one patients over 65 years old were recruited. Thirty-six per cent reported falls in the 6-month follow-up period. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.57 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.66) for the FROP Com Screen and 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.63) for the Two-Item Screening Tool. FROP Com Screen had a sensitivity of 39% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and a specificity of 70% (95% CI 0.61 to 0.78), while the Two-Item Screening Tool had a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 0.36 to 0.60) and a specificity of 57% (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66).ConclusionBoth tools have limited predictive ability in the ED setting.


2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. e330
Author(s):  
P. Tucker ◽  
M. Härmä ◽  
A. Ojajärvi ◽  
M. Kivimäki ◽  
C. Leineweber ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. e011864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Farren ◽  
Maria Jalmbrant ◽  
Lieveke Ameye ◽  
Karen Joash ◽  
Nicola Mitchell-Jones ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document