Frequency of alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and NEWS scores during the emergency department stay in infectious patients: a prospective study

Background For emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection, a vital sign-based clinical rule is often calculated shortly after the patient arrives. The clinical rule score (normal or abnormal) provides information about diagnosis and/or prognosis. Since vital signs vary over time, the clinical rule scores can change as well. In this prospective multicentre study, we investigate how often the scores of four frequently used clinical rules change during the ED stay of patients with suspected infection. Methods Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with suspected infection were prospectively included in three Dutch EDs between March 2016 and December 2019. Vital signs were measured in 30-min intervals and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the Modified Early Warning Score and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) score were calculated. Using the established cut-off points, we analysed how often alterations in clinical rule scores occurred (i.e. switched from normal to abnormal or vice versa). In addition, we investigated which vital signs caused most alterations. Results We included 1433 patients, of whom a clinical rule score changed once or more in 637 (44.5%) patients. In 6.7–17.5% (depending on the clinical rule) of patients with an initial negative clinical rule score, a positive score occurred later during ED stay. In over half (54.3–65.0%) of patients with an initial positive clinical rule score, the score became negative later on. The respiratory rate caused most (51.2%) alterations. Conclusion After ED arrival, alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and/or NEWS score are present in almost half of patients with suspected infection. The most contributing vital sign to these alterations was the respiratory rate. One in 6–15 patients displayed an abnormal clinical rule score after a normal initial score. Clinicians should be aware of the frequency of these alterations in clinical rule scores, as clinical rules are widely used for diagnosis and/or prognosis and the optimal moment of assessing them is unknown.

Fall incidents in nursing home residents: development of a predictive clinical rule (FINDER)

ObjectivesTo develop (part I) and validate (part II) an electronic fall risk clinical rule (CR) to identify nursing home residents (NH-residents) at risk for a fall incident.DesignObservational, retrospective case–control study.SettingNursing homes.ParticipantsA total of 1668 (824 in part I, 844 in part II) NH-residents from the Netherlands were included. Data of participants from part I were excluded in part II.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDevelopment and validation of a fall risk CR in NH-residents. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the fall risk-variables in part I. With these, three CRs were developed (ie, at the day of the fall incident and 3 days and 5 days prior to the fall incident). The overall prediction quality of the CRs were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC), and a cut-off value was determined for the predicted risk ensuring a sensitivity ≥0.85. Finally, one CR was chosen and validated in part II using a new retrospective data set.ResultsEleven fall risk-variables were identified in part I. The AUROCs of the three CRs form part I were similar: the AUROC for models I, II and III were 0.714 (95% CI: 0.679 to 0.748), 0.715 (95% CI: 0.680 to 0.750) and 0.709 (95% CI: 0.674 to 0.744), respectively. Model III (ie, 5 days prior to the fall incident) was chosen for validation in part II. The validated AUROC of the CR, obtained in part II, was 0.603 (95% CI: 0.565 to 0.641) with a sensitivity of 83.41% (95% CI: 79.44% to 86.76%) and a specificity of 27.25% (95% CI 23.11% to 31.81%).ConclusionMedication data and resident characteristics alone are not sufficient enough to develop a successful CR with a high sensitivity and specificity to predict fall risk in NH-residents.Trial registration numberNot available.

Accuracy of PECARN rule for predicting serious bacterial infection in infants with fever without a source

ObjectiveTo validate the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) clinical prediction rule on an independent cohort of infants with fever without a source (FWS).DesignSecondary analysis of a prospective registry.SettingPaediatric emergency department of a tertiary teaching hospital.PatientsInfants ≤60 days old with FWS between 2007 and 2018.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of serious bacterial infection (SBI) and invasive bacterial infection (IBI) in low-risk infants according to the PECARN rule.ResultsAmong the 1247 infants included, 256 were diagnosed with an SBI (20.5%), including 38 IBIs (3.1%). Overall, 576 infants (46.0%; 95% CI 43.4% to 49.0%) would have been classified as low risk of SBI by the PECARN rule. Of them, 26 had an SBI (4.5%), including 5 with an IBI (2 (0.8%) diagnosed with bacterial meningitis). Sensitivity and specificity of the PECARN rule were 89.8% (95% CI 85.5% to 93.0%) and 55.5% (95% CI 52.4% to 58.6%) for SBI, with an area under the curve of 0.726 (95% CI 0.702 to 0.750). Its sensitivity to identify SBIs was 88.6% (95% CI 82.0% to 92.9%) among infants with a <6-hour history of fever (54.9% of the infants included).ConclusionsThe PECARN clinical rule for identifying SBI performed less well in our population than in the original study. This clinical rule should be applied cautiously in young infants with a short history of fever.