Performance of seven different paediatric early warning scores to predict critical care admission in febrile children presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study
File(s)e044091.full.pdf (360.29 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objective Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) are widely used in the UK, but the heterogeneity across tools and the limited data on their predictive performance represent obstacles to improving best practice. The standardisation of practice through the proposed National PEWS will rely on robust validation. Therefore, we compared the performance of the National PEWS with six other PEWS currently used in NHS hospitals, for their ability to predict critical care (CC) admission in febrile children attending the emergency department (ED).
Design Retrospective single-centre cohort study.
Setting Tertiary hospital paediatric ED.
Participants A total of 11 449 eligible febrile ED attendances were identified from the electronic patient record over a 2-year period. Seven PEWS scores were calculated (Alder Hey, Bedside, Bristol, National, Newcastle and Scotland PEWS, and the Paediatric Observation Priority Score, using the worst observations recorded during their ED stay.
Outcomes The primary outcome was CC admission within 48 hours, the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) >48 hours and sepsis-related mortality.
Results Of 11 449 febrile children, 134 (1.2%) were admitted to CC within 48 hours of ED presentation, 606 (5.3%) had a hospital LOS >48 hours. 10 (0.09%) children died, 5 (0.04%) were sepsis-related. All seven PEWS demonstrated excellent discrimination for CC admission (range area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) 0.91–0.95) and sepsis-related mortality (range AUC 0.95–0.99), most demonstrated moderate discrimination for hospital LOS (range AUC 0.69–0.75). In CC admission threshold analyses, bedside PEWS (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.93) and National PEWS (AUC 0.90; 0.87–0.93) were the most discriminative, both at a threshold of ≥6.
Conclusions Our results support the use of the proposed National PEWS in the paediatric ED for the recognition of suspected sepsis to improve outcomes, but further validation is required in other settings and presentations.
Design Retrospective single-centre cohort study.
Setting Tertiary hospital paediatric ED.
Participants A total of 11 449 eligible febrile ED attendances were identified from the electronic patient record over a 2-year period. Seven PEWS scores were calculated (Alder Hey, Bedside, Bristol, National, Newcastle and Scotland PEWS, and the Paediatric Observation Priority Score, using the worst observations recorded during their ED stay.
Outcomes The primary outcome was CC admission within 48 hours, the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) >48 hours and sepsis-related mortality.
Results Of 11 449 febrile children, 134 (1.2%) were admitted to CC within 48 hours of ED presentation, 606 (5.3%) had a hospital LOS >48 hours. 10 (0.09%) children died, 5 (0.04%) were sepsis-related. All seven PEWS demonstrated excellent discrimination for CC admission (range area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) 0.91–0.95) and sepsis-related mortality (range AUC 0.95–0.99), most demonstrated moderate discrimination for hospital LOS (range AUC 0.69–0.75). In CC admission threshold analyses, bedside PEWS (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.93) and National PEWS (AUC 0.90; 0.87–0.93) were the most discriminative, both at a threshold of ≥6.
Conclusions Our results support the use of the proposed National PEWS in the paediatric ED for the recognition of suspected sepsis to improve outcomes, but further validation is required in other settings and presentations.
Date Issued
2021-05
Date Acceptance
2021-04-20
Citation
BMJ Open, 2021, 11 (5), pp.1-10
ISSN
2044-6055
Publisher
BMJ
Start Page
1
End Page
10
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Open
Volume
11
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
License URL
Sponsor
National Institute of Health and Medical Research
Identifier
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/5/e044091
Grant Number
CL-2018-21-007
Subjects
1103 Clinical Sciences
1117 Public Health and Health Services
1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2021-05-04